|American Federalism Assignments
A. Diagram: Three Major Systems of Government
B. Pros and Cons: FEDERALISM
C. Different Types of Constitutional Powers
D. Supremacy Clause: Explain/Details
E. Distinguish: Vertical & Horizontal Checks and Balances
F. Discuss the various aspects of Interstate Relations
G. Defining Constitutional Powers (Court Cases- 2)
H. Discuss States’ Rights and the Civil War
I. What are the so-called Civil War Amendments?
J. Graphic Organizer: Dual, Cooperative, & Picket-Fence Federalism
K. News or Magazine Article: 1937 Court Packing Plan
L. Graphic Organizer: Federal Grants
M. What Has National Authority Accomplished?
N. Why should the states favor the status quo?
O. Federalism becomes a Republican Issue
P. The New Federalism
Q. Federalism in the Twenty-first Century
After students have read and studied this chapter, they should be able to:
Define three ways of ordering relations between a central government and regional or local governments.
Describe the historical arguments for and against federalism in the United States.
Identify and explain the division of powers between the national and state governments in the American federal system.
Powers denied by the Constitution
Explain the supremacy clause and its implications.
Explain the obligations states have to each other.
Explain the constitutional questions posed in McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden and how the Supreme Court resolved these issues.
Explain the importance of the commerce clause.
Explain the impact of the Civil War on federalism.
Explain the rights granted by the Civil War amendments, and their impact on federalism.
Describe dual federalism as it evolved after the Civil War.
Explain how dual federalism was replaced by cooperative federalism and how the Supreme Court’s resistance to cooperative federalism came to an end.
Explain the tools of cooperative federalism, including categorical grants and block grants.
Describe the impact of federal mandates on state and local governments.
Explain why conservatism has been associated with states’ rights and how the national government has been a force for change.
Explain the “new Federalism” adopted since the 1970s by the Republican Party.
Explain recent Supreme Court rulings affecting federalism.
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION
Which level of government should take the lead in addressing the problems facing this nation, the federal government or state and local governments?
Should there be a single national position on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage or should they be resolved on a state-by-state basis?
Can you think of examples in which the supremacy doctrine has practical effect?
What options do the governors of states have if they believe an action of the national government is illegitimate?
Did the Supreme Court make the correct decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, expanding the power available to Congress and placing the federal government in a preeminent position relative to the states?
Explain the significance of Gibbons v. Ogden and the cases that were based on its principles.
Explain the parallels between Gibbons v. Ogden and current attempts by states to regulate the Internet. What are the differences in these cases?
Which level of government deserves more criticism for the response to Hurricane Katrina: the federal government or the state and local governments?
What are the obstacles to devolution? Are there any disadvantages to the new federalism?
Did the Supreme Court make the correct decision in the Lopez case, or should it have found some way to uphold the constitutionality of the Gun Free School Zones Act?
Do the students agree with the Supreme Court’s decisions in the cases involving Oregon’s Death With Dignity Law and California’s Medicinal Marijuana program?
BEYOND THE BOOK
In 1997 legendary filmmaker John Frankenheimer directed George Wallace and Gary Sinise won an Emmy Award for his portrayal of the title character. Have your students watch this film and focus on Wallace’s resistance to the federal government’s initiatives on civil rights. After you’ve discussed the particular issues involved in the clash over civil rights at the University of Alabama, turn the conversation to other issues. What if a governor truly believes, with every fiber of his or her being, that the federal government is making a horrible mistake and is inclined to fight this action? If a governor did provide this resistance, how should the President of the United States respond? On this question, another Frankenheimer film might be useful. Even though 2002’s Path to War focuses on Lyndon Johnson’s decision to plunge the United States into war in Vietnam, there is a fascinating ten minute segment in which Johnson meets with George Wallace in the White House and convinces him to drop his obstructionist policies. It also presents the stark contrast between the Kennedy’s use of confrontation and Johnson’s use of persuasion in dealing with the governor. Have your students discuss which is the better strategy in conflicts between federal and state government.
It is a common article of faith among many conservatives, especially in the South, that the Civil War was entirely about states’ rights, and not about slavery at all. This raises a tricky point: people in general, and your students in particular, have the right to their own personal ideologies. Holding an ideology, however, is not the same thing as holding an idea favorable to that ideology which, in point of specific fact, is demonstrably not true. Modern defenders of the Confederacy may base their arguments entirely on states’ rights but that is not what happened at the time. The secession resolutions adopted by the various Confederate states say little about states’ rights, but are filled with defenses of slavery and denunciations of northern abolitionism. Lincoln himself had given the strongest promises he knew how to give that he would respect states’ rights. But Lincoln also made no bones about the fact that he was at heart an abolitionist, and that was too much for the deep South. Recommendation: if you wish to make this point, attempt to also make the distinction between ideology and specific facts as given above, in an attempt to show proper respect to any student you may be forced to correct. Students have a right to believe in states’ rights (and even defend the Confederacy on that basis), but the historical record must also be respected. Also note the formulation used in the text: states rights as the form, slavery as the content.
Three Systems of Government
A Unitary System. In a unitary system of government, the central government gives power to sub-national governments (counties, provinces, etc.). This is the most common form of government. Local governments typically have only those powers granted to them by the central government, rather than any reserved powers. Especially important is the central government’s role of provider of funds. Many sub-national governments rely exclusively on funds from the national government for overhead and program administration, as they may not have the power to tax.
A Confederal System. In a confederal system of government, power is retained by local or regional governments. The EU (European Union) is an example of a current confederal system. Each country has ultimate power within the system although there is an EU parliament and other institutions that set a common European policy.
A Federal System. Federal systems divide power between the national and lower level governments. Each government has distinct powers that the other governments cannot override. A number of countries use a federal form of government (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Mexico, and the United States).
A Practical Solution. The authors of the Constitution wanted to combine a central government strong enough to maintain order with strong states.
Other Arguments for Federalism. Other arguments for federalism include the large geographical size of a country.
Benefits for the United States. State governments have served as training grounds for national politicians and as laboratories in which new ideas can be tested.
Federalism Allows for Many Political Subcultures. Federalism can be favored because of sectionalism and political subcultures that led many to advocate decentralization.
Arguments against Federalism. Smaller political units are more likely to be dominated by single political groups. Some Americans suffer as a consequence of different standards in different states.
The Constitutional Basis for American Federalism
Powers of the National Government. Powers delegated to the national government include both expressed and implied powers. Most of the expressed powers are bestowed on Congress (Article I, Section 8). Implied powers allow the national government to make decisions that fall outside the expressed powers.
The Necessary and Proper Clause. Many of these powers are traced to the necessary and proper clause in Article I, Section 8.
Inherent Powers. The other major source of power is known as inherent powers, powers that are recognized by all sovereign nations.
Powers of the State Governments. Reserved powers of the states are, according to the Tenth Amendment, all powers that were not delegated to the national government. Interpretation of the Constitution has significantly altered the meaning of this amendment. In 1791, when this amendment became effective, the national government was not as active as it is today. In theory states still retain all powers not delegated to the national government, but in reality the national government has expanded the scope of governmental action on a grand scale. Key concept: police power, the authority to legislate for the protection of the health, morals, safety, and welfare of the people. In the United States, most police power is reserved to the states.
Concurrent Powers. Concurrent powers are powers that are shared by both the national and state governments. Examples include the power to tax, to make and enforce laws and to establish courts, and to a limited extent, the police power.
Prohibited Powers. Prohibited powers apply to both the national and state governments. The national government is prohibited from taxing exports. State governments are prohibited from conducting foreign policy and from coining money.
The Supremacy Clause. Article VI of the Constitution mandates that actions by the national government are supreme. Any conflict between a legitimate action of the national government and a state will be resolved in favor of the national government.
Vertical Checks and Balances. Federalism can be seen as an additional way of preventing government from growing too strong, beyond the division of the national government into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Interstate Relations. Article IV of the Constitution attempts to resolve potential problems between states by stipulating the following:
Full faith and credit clause—states must honor actions of other states.
Privileges and immunities—citizens of one state must not be treated as aliens when in another state. If the citizen of one state moves to another state, the receiving state must treat the new person as a citizen.
Interstate extradition—if a person is alleged to have committed a crime in one state and then flees to another state, the accused person will be extradited to the state where the alleged action occurred. (Note that this clause originally applied to escaped slaves as well.)
Interstate compacts—compacts between states—must be approved by Congress if the compact alters the power relationship between states or the national government.
Defining Constitutional Powers—The Early Years
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). This case settled a constitutional question concerning the powers of the national government. Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision confirmed national power. The power of Congress is not strictly limited to the expressed powers. Marshall held Congress has implied powers to carry out the expressed powers. Further, Marshall upheld the supremacy doctrine by ruling that states could not override federal actions by taxing them.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). This case set the precedent for the national government to regulate a wide range of economic activities. The definition of what could be considered interstate commerce was greatly expanded. In time this definition would allow Congress the power to regulate a wide range of economic activities.
States’ Rights and the Resort to Civil War
The Shift Back to States’ Rights. In the Jacksonian era (1829–1837) states’ rights were reemphasized by the new Democratic Party. However, President Jackson would not tolerate a direct challenge to the supremacy doctrine, as was presented by South Carolina’s nullification doctrine. Because South Carolina received little or no support from other southern states in this dispute over the national government’s exercise of its enumerated power to set taxes on imports (tariffs), the state had to back down.
War and the Growth of the National Government.
The War Effort. A major effect of the Civil War was the growth of the national government. The cost of the military led the national government to develop new ways to generate revenue (the first income tax). This increased action by the national government did not end with the war. After the war there was no longer a question as to whether the national government was supreme.
The Civil War Amendments. The post-war amendments represented a serious enhancement of national power. The national government now abolished slavery, defined who was an American citizen, and attempted (with limited success) to provide rights to the freed slaves that included the right to vote. In time, the Fourteenth Amendment—at first almost a dead letter—would be used to apply the Bill of Rights to state governments and to underpin the civil rights gained by African Americans in the 1960s.
The Continuing Dispute Over the Division of Power
Dual Federalism and the Retreat of National Authority. Dual federalism emphasized dividing the state and national spheres of power into entirely separate jurisdictions.
A Return to Normal Conditions. This doctrine was, in part, a return to the states’ rights beliefs that prevailed before the Civil War.
The Role of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was caught on the wrong side of the Civil War conflict and lost its legitimacy for a generation. As the Court regained its powers, it used them to define and defend what we now call dual federalism. In particular, the Court denied the federal government any police power at all.
The New Deal and Cooperative Federalism. Cooperative federalism emphasized an expanded role for the national government, and cooperation between the national government and the states.
The New Deal. In response to the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration implemented social-welfare programs designed to alleviate the bad economic times. Dual federalism, in contrast, dictated that programs such as relief to the poor were entirely outside of the federal role.
The End of Dual Federalism. The Supreme Court struck down dozens of New Deal programs as unconstitutional. After Roosevelt threatened to “pack” the Court with newly appointed justices, however, the Court ceased to interfere with the national government’s attempts to legislate broadly under the commerce clause.
Cooperative Federalism. Roosevelt’s programs typically were funded by the federal government, but administered by states and local governments, thus creating a cooperative framework for federalist relations.
Methods of Implementing Cooperative Federalism.
Categorical Grants. Federal grants became a popular way to help construct the national infrastructure. In addition to infrastructure needs, states began to see federal grants as a way to provide services to the public. Key concept: categorical grants, or federal grants to states or local governments that are for specific programs or projects.
Feeling the Pressure—the Strings Attached to Federal Grants. Usually such grants must include matching funds from the state or local government. Often, grants have significant strings attached.
Block Grants. Key concept: block grants, which allow state or local governments more leeway in deciding how to spend funds for a specific type of governmental service such as health care. Policies such as welfare reform have enabled states to act as policy laboratories, trying different policy solutions to see what works best.
Federal Mandates. Sometimes the federal government will impose a mandate on state or local governments to implement a costly policy in return for funds that may not make up the full costs of the program.
The Politics of Federalism
States’ rights have been associated with conservatism and national authority has been associated with liberalism. Why?
What Has National Authority Accomplished? It has been an engine of change in American history. National authority freed the slaves and initiated economic regulation and welfare support in the 1930s.
Civil Rights and the War on Poverty. Under Lyndon Johnson (1963–1969) national authority was used to expand support for the poor and to guarantee civil rights to African Americans and others.
Why Should the States Favor the Status Quo? Some states may be out of step with the majority on an issue such as the right of African Americans to vote. National authority can impose a national consensus on recalcitrant states. States may compete against each other for the best “business climate” by lowering taxes, but the national government does not experience this imperative. Finally, local economic interests may wish to preserve the status quo (functioning as factions in the sense described in Madison’s Federalist # 10.)
Federalism Becomes a Republican Issue.
The “New Federalism.” Beginning with President Richard Nixon (1969–1974) the Republican Party championed devolution, or the transfer of powers from the national government to the states. They called this policy federalism, a new use of the term.
Federalism in the Twenty-first Century. Under current conditions, however, liberals may have pragmatic reasons to support states’ rights in some instances, such as in gay rights issues.
Federalism and the Supreme Court
Reining in the Commerce Power. Since the early 1990s, the Court has reined in some of the federal government’s authority under the commerce clause, though this hardly amounts to a return to dual federalism. One of the most significant decisions in this line of precedent is United States v. Lopez.
State Sovereignty and the Eleventh Amendment. The Court has ruled that in many cases, the states are immune from suits brought by their own citizens in federal court. This is a significant expansion of states’ rights.
Tenth Amendment Issues. The Court has ruled that the federal government cannot “conscript state governments as its agents” in undertaking programs. It can still “bribe” them, however.
Other Federalism Cases. The Court in recent years has scrambled to find consistency as it rules on clashes between the Bush Administration and states, ruling for Oregon and its Death With Dignity Law and against California and its medicinal marijuana program.
What If . . . One State’s Same-Sex Marriages Had to Be Recognized Nationwide? The conflict over the controversial issue of same-sex marriage has occurred within the context of Article IV’s requirement that all states provide full faith and credit to the actions of other states. The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted as a way of empowering states to act in disregard of this constitutional provision. As the question for critical analysis indicates, it is possible that the issue may have to be resolved by constitutional amendment.
Beyond Our Borders: America’s Port System. Even though the federal government possesses inherent powers, the controversy over the Bush Administration’s plan to allow the Dubai Ports World Corporation to take over control of American ports shows clearly that public outrage can serve as an effective limitation on these powers.
Which Side Are You On? Responding to Natural Disasters. Hurricane Katrina presented a veritable case study of governmental incompetence as well as the playing of the blame game. Although some point the finger of blame squarely at either the federal or state and local governments, the reality is that there was more than enough responsibility and incompetence to go around for all of the governmental actors.
Ch. 3 Federalism BURNS
The Federal Division of Powers
Types of Powers Delegated to the National Government
Express powers stated in the Constitution
Implied powers that my be inferred from express powers
Inherent powers that allow the nation to present a united front in foreign powers
Powers Reserved for the States
To create a republican form of government
To charter local governments
To conduct elections
To exercise all powers not delegated to the national government or denied to the states by the Constitution
Some Concurrent Powers Shared by the National and State Governments
To tax citizens and businesses
To borrow and spend money
To establish courts
To pass and enforce laws
To protect civil rights
Resources: Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan
Survey Center, University of Michigan
1. Where is sovereignty located in the American political system?
2. How is power divided between the national government and the states under the Constitution?
3. How has America’s federal system changed since the first days of the Republic?
4. Is dual federalism the friend or foe of liberty, equality, political participation, and policy innovation?
Devolution-- in recent years the effort to devolve onto the states the national government’s functions in areas such as welfare, health care, and job training
Republican majorities in the House and the Senate have accelarated devolution in their proposals
Many of the proposals involve giving the states block grants --money from the national government for programs in certain general areas that the state can use at their discretion within broad guidelines set by Congress
Federalism --a political system in which there are local (territorial, regional, provincial, state, or municipal) units of government as well as a national government, that can make final decisions with respect to a least some governmental activities and whose existence is specially protected. Essentially it is a system in which the national and state levels share political power. States or local units exist independently of the national government.
The independence of American states are the creation of the commitment of Americans to the idea of local self-government and from the fact that Congress consists of people who are selected by and responsive to local constituencies
According to David B. Truman, “The basic political fact of federalism is that it creates separate, self-sustaining centers of power, prestige, and profit.”
Although there is great political power at the national level, the state level exercises immense political power.
State Functions and controls: a large part of the welfare system, all of the interstate highway system, virtually every aspect of programs to improve cities, the largest part of the effort to supply jobs to the unemployed, clean water projects, military power (national guard). Though they make use of federal money***
Pros and Cons of federalism (according to political scientists serving as critics and proponents)
the federal system showcases/displays the unique combination of governmental strength, political flexibility, and individual liberty.
--it also has allowed people to combat racial segregation, regulate harmful economic practices (many originate at the state or local levels)
--the ruling factions have taken the lead in developing measures to protect the environment, extend civil rights, and improve social conditions
to some federalism means allowing states to block action, prevent progress, upset national plans, protect powerful local interests, and cater to the self-interest of hack politicans.
--it is what allowed racial segregation, enables individuals to protect vested interests, and facilitate corruption
--in some places groups/factions have used their political power to oppose granting equal rights to minority groups (think of James Madison #10 who proposed all relevant issues be heard)
federalism is complicated 50 states, 3000 counties, thousands of cities, and a national government.
Increased Political Activity
Federalism allows the average citizen to become more involved in organized political activity (of having a practical effect).
Goal of the Founders: federalism was one means of protected personal liberty
(the separation of powers was another)
--they feared placing the final political authority in any one set of hands, even in the hands of persons popularly elected, would so concentrate power as to risk tyranny.
--they had also seen the problems when independent states have great power as with the Articles of Confederation and its shortcomings from 1776 to 1787
A Bold, New Plan
a federation or “federal republic” as the Founders called it derives its power directly from the people, as do the state governments. They envisioned both levels of government the national and the state, would have certain powers, but neither would have supreme authority over the other.
In Federalist #28 Hamilton explained the system as one in which the people could shift their support between state and federal levels of government as needed to keep the two in balance.
Tenth Amendment “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or the people.”
Even the Founders carried different views of federalism
One (accepted by Hamilton) view: since the laws and treaties made pursuant to the Constitution were “the supreme law of the land” Hamilton and others believed the national government was the superior and leading force in political affairs and that its powers ought to be broadly defined and liberally construed. Hamilton argued for national supremacy.
The other view: Championed by Jefferson and others the federal government, though important, was the product of an agreement among the states and though the people were the ultimate sovereigns the principal threat to their liberties was likely to come from the national government. Thus the powers of the federal government should be narrowly construed and strictly limited. Jefferson was for states’ rights.
THE DEBATE ON THE MEANING OF FEDERALISM
The big issue National Supremacy versus States’ Rights
--the Civil War was, in a sense or in part, fought over this issue
in the end the national government was supreme and the states could not lawfully secede form the Union
The Supreme Court Speaks
The Supreme Court became the focal point of the debate as the arbiter of what the Constitution means
--Chief Justice John Marshall led the Supreme Court during the formative years. In a series of decisions he and the Court powerfully defended the national-supremacy view of the newly formed federal government.
--The most important decision was McCulloch v. Maryland
James McCulloch the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States, which had been created by Congress, refused to pay a tax levied on that bank by the state of Maryland. He was hauled inot the state court and convicted of failing to pay a tax. in 1819, McCulloch appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court’s decision answered two questions in ways that expanded the powers of Congress and confirmed the supremacy of federal government in the exercise of those powers.
--Congress had the right to set uup a bank or any other corporation because it had the power to manage money: lay and collect taxes, issue a currency, and borrow funds. Marshall considered the national bank “necessary and proper”
--The second issue involved a state taxing a federal bank. Marshall stated that the state was not established by the states, but by the people, and thus the federal government was supreme in the exercise of those powers conferred upon it. Thus the bank had to be immune from state challenge and protected from state destruction.
*McCulloch and the federal government won.
The struggle over states’ rights continued to rage in Congress, during presidential elections, and ultimately on the battlefield.
Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (Jefferson and Madison’s response to Congressional law passed to punish newspaper editors who published stories critical of the federal government) suggesting the states had the right to nullify (declare null and void)
in the states’ opinion, violated the Constitution.
The doctrine of nullification was revived by John C. Calhoun of South Calhoun to oppose a tariff and federal efforts to restrict slavery. Calhoun argued that if the national government attempted to ban slavery, the states had the right to declare such acts unconstitutional and thus null and void. The northern victory in the Civil determined once and for all that states could not declare congressional acts unconstitutional.
Dual Federalism - Although the national government was supreme in its sphere, the states were equally supreme in theirs, and that these two spheres of action should and could be kept separate.
--applied in areas of interstate commerce which commerce could regulate and intrastate commerce which only the states could regulate and that the Court could tell which was which
United States v. Lopez (1995) the Court held that Congress had exceeded its commerce clause power by prohibiting guns in schools.
United States v. Morrison (1994?)--attacks against women are not, and do not substantially affect, interstate commerce, and hence Congress cannot constitutionally pass such a law
The states of course, can pass such laws and many have.
Printz v. United States (1997) The Court invalidated a federal law that required local police to conduct background checks on all gun purchasers. The Court ruled that the law violated the Tenth Amendment by commandeering state governments to carry out a federal regulatory program.
Alden v. Maine (1999) The Court held that state employees could not sue to force state compliance with federal fair labor laws.
*Examples of Court decisions, assure greater state sovereignty. Pro-state sovereignty decisions
State power often considered: police power--those laws and regulations not otherwise unconstitutional, that promote health, safety, and morals. Thus, states could enact and enforce criminal codes, require children to attend school and citizens to be vaccinated, and restrict the availability of pornographic materials or the activities of prostitutes and drug dealers. As a practical matter the most important activities of state and local governments involve public education, law enforcement and criminal justice, health and hospitals, roads and highways, public welfare, and control over the use of public land and water supplies.
Direct Democracy (ways in which citizens are directly involved in government)
initiative - allows voters to place legislative measures and sometimes constitutional amendments) directly on the ballot by getting enough signatures on a petition
referendum- a procedure that enables voters to reject a measure adopted by the legislature.
recall- a procedure in effect in about one-third of the states whereby voters can remove an elected official from office. If enough signatures are gathered on a petition, the official must go before voters, who can vote to leave the person in office, remove the person from office, or remove the person and replace him or her with someone else.
What are the guarantees given to states by the federal government? p.59
The existence of states is guaranteed by the federal government
no state can be divided without its consent
each state must have two representatives in the Senate
every state is assured of a republican form of government
the powers not granted to Congress are reserved for the states.
*by contrast cities, towns, and counties enjoy no such protection; they exist at the pleasure of the state. The state is supreme when these entities are concerned.
Grants - in -aid
Congress gives funds to states to pay for militias, housing assistance for low income families, Medicaid, highway construction, services to the unemployed, and welfare programs for mothers with dependent children and for the disabled.
*Washington would pay the bills, the states would run the programs.
Why does federal money seem so attractive to state officials?
1. Money was available because the federal government took more money that it was spending in the early part of the 19th century. The money went to pensions for Civil War vets, states, and internal improvements
2. Federal income tax 1920s proved to be a great tool of public finance
3. Federal government printed money as it needed it.
4. Politics: federal money often viewed as free money
Categorical Grants versus Revenue sharing
1. Categorical grants is one for a specific purpose defined by federal law: to build an airport or a college dorm. They usually requires a state or locality to put up money to match some part of the federal grant. Governors and mayors typically complain because they consider them too narrow.
2. Block grants (aka special revenue sharing or broadbased aid)--use for general purpose and have fewer restrictions.
Community Development Block Grants
Law Enforcement Assistance Act
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act
3. General Revenue Sharing (GRS)- $6 billion a year in federal funds to states and localities. There is no matching funds requirement and they have freedom to spend the money on almost any government purpose.
Do states and localities fear using federal monies will increase federal control/
Federal controls on state governmental activities:
1. conditions of aid--the traditional control tells the state government what it must do if if wants to get some grant money.
--accepting these conditions is voluntary--if you don’t want the strings you don’t take the money (e.g. highway beautification program for federal highway aid money, pay construction workers the prevailing wage, or contractors who build the project must have nondiscriminatory hiring policies.)
2. mandates - tell the state government what it must do, period.
--most mandates concern civil rights and environmental protection (e.g. no discrimination on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, and age or must comply with federal standards for clean air, pure, drinking water, and sewage treatment.)
see Table 3.2
A DEVOLUTION REVOLUTION?
The election of the Republican majorities in the House and Senate in 1994 a renewed effort was led by Congress to shift important functions back to the states.
The first issue was welfare: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Pres. Clintion vetoed first two bill and signed the third which required aided women to begin working within a two year period and no woman could receive benefits for more that five years.
Republican initiatives were part of a new effort called devolution, which aimed to pass on to the state. Congress, rather than the president, lead the effort. Their goal was clear, to scale back the size and activities of the national government.
Block grants operational grants for purposes such as running state child-care programs
Capital grants for such as building local waste water treatment plants
entitlements grants transferring income to families and individuals
The two biggest grant -in- aid AFDC “welfare” and Medicaid which finances the majority of medical and long term care services for low income nad disabled adults and children =entitlement programs (Each state was entitled to federal dollars for AFDC and Medicaid based onteh amount of money it paid to poor families and individuals.
The 104th Congress proposed making AFDC, Medicaid, job training, vocational education, employment, childcard, foster care, school nutrition, and food programs.
Second-order devolution a flow of power and responsibility from the states of local governments
Third order devolution the increased role of nonprofit organizations and private groups in policy implementation
What’s Driving Devolution?
--belief that state capitals take the lead in figuring out how best to address social problems and administer public health and welfare programs
--House Republicans hoped to cut entitlement spending