Government Content Post

Instructions

Of the three types of federalism discussed in Block 02, which do you prefer as to the type of government you wish to live under, why, and what would be the advantages and disadvantages of this type of federalism? Explain with examples from current society (Hint: think of a major societal issue and how the type of federalism you prefer would handle it or is handling it now)What is Federalism?Defining federalism has never been a simple task. As colonies, the states had developedindependently and, even after the Revolutionary War, they remained "distinct, differentand insular communities." Consequently, bringing the states together in a federalsystem was fraught with controversy. The states had become very jealous of theirindependence and autonomy and many people were suspicious of the newConstitutional arrangement that would require the states to give up power to thenational government. Indeed, it was the states' reluctance to surrender even thesmallest amount of sovereignty that had made the government under the Articles ofConfederation so weak.The events that had prompted the states to send delegates to the ConstitutionalConvention, however, had also made them much more willing to accept limitations onstate power than they had been before. If a stronger national government could helpsolve the states' trade and commerce problems, they were willing to relinquish some oftheir independence. Then as today, however, there was controversy about just howmuch independence would have to be given up to make the national governmentstrong enough to achieve the ends it was being created to pursue.Redefining "Federalism"The Articles of Confederation had established a "federal" system in the truest sense ofthe word. In the late 1700s, a federation or federal relationship meant an alliancebetween sovereign, independent and autonomous states or nations. Such was thearrangement under the Articles, which had created a "loose league of friendship"governed by a Confederal Congress with no authority to compel the states to doanything. It could simply request that the states comply with its recommendations. Asinternal problems and external crises became more severe, however, the states beganto recognize that the Articles were insufficient for their needs.Having admitted that a stronger national government was necessary, the states werestill not anxious about giving up authority or autonomy to a national government. Farfrom lending support to a "consolidated" government, one in which the states would betotally and completely absorbed into a larger nation with one government, theypreferred a continued federal relationship between the states and the nationalgovernment.Recognizing the attractiveness of the federal principle, the supporters of theConstitution called themselves "Federalists," even though their true intentions were notto form a "federal" government at all. By Madison's own admission, the Constitutionalsystem created a consolidated-federal hybrid:The proposed Constitution . . . is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federalConstitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; inthe sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partlyfederal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritativemode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.It turned out to be a stroke of political genius for Madison and his allies to callthemselves "federalists" while supporting a Constitution that created a less than purelyfederal system. The opponents of the Constitution were left with the unenviable title of"Anti-federalists," as if they were opposed to the federal principle.While the Federalists would eventually win the battle for ratification of the Constitution,the definition of federalism and the relationship between the national and stategovernments was not settled once and for all in 1789. Indeed, Woodrow Wilson, the28th President of the United States, would later observe:The question of the relation of the States to the Federal Government is the cardinalquestion of our constitutional system. At every turn of our national development, wehave been brought face to face with it, and no definition either of statesmen or ofjudges has ever quieted or decided it.Competing Definitions of FederalismAs Wilson suggests, there have been numerous attempts throughout American politicalhistory to define and re-define federalism. However, the best efforts of both nationaland state political leaders and Supreme Court Justices notwithstanding, this nation hasnever settled on one definition of federalism. Historically, presidents, members ofCongress, judges and state and local leaders have held often radically opposeddefinitions and interpretations of federalism.Dual FederalismDuring the first century of this nation's existence, the most widely accepted view of therelationship between the states and the national government was one of "dualfederalism." Sometimes called the "layered cake" theory of federalism, dual federalismis based on the notion that there are two distinct spheres of government, a nationalsphere and a state sphere. Within each sphere, the relevant government is independentand largely autonomous, free from intrusions by the other.While the notion that states remained completely sovereign and independent from thenational government had been rejected and soundly rejected during the Civil War, dualfederalism continued to be the most widely held view of federalism in this nation untilthe 1930s. Historians and students of federalism generally point to the GreatDepression as the point in time when dual federalism fell out of fashion. In response tothis nation's worst economic crisis, the national government mobilized as it never hadbefore, creating several new, large-scale programs, including nationally administeredjobs programs and Social Security. The massive extension of national governmentalauthority and influence that accompanied these programs dramatically altered thebalance of power between the national government and the states. With thecooperation of the Supreme Court, the dual federalism approach was replaced with a new understanding of national-state relations, one which gave much greater weight tothe national government prerogatives.Since the 1980s, dual federalism has gradually regained support among politicians and,more recently, Supreme Court Justices. Presidents Reagan and Bush both sought toreestablish clearer lines between national and state functions. More dramatically,however, the Supreme Court has resurrected the concept of dual federalism and dualsovereignty in some of its recent decisions. When the Court declared a provision of theBrady Bill unconstitutional in 1997, it did so because, in the opinion of the Court, itviolated the notion of dual federalism. At issue was a five day waiting period topurchase a handgun. While the Court was not overly concerned about the waitingperiod itself, it ruled that requiring local law enforcement officials to performbackground checks on potential gun buyers was improper. In its decision, the Courtdeclared:The federal government may neither issue directives requiring the states to addressparticular problems, nor command the states' officers, or those of their politicalsubdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. Such commandsare fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty (seePrintz v. U.S.).Whether or not the Court continues to rely on this interpretation of federalism in futurecases, however, remains to be seen. Given the narrow vote margins in many recentfederalism cases, the definition of federalism will depend on future Supreme Courtappointments. If the next president appoints conservative judges who are friendly tothe notion of states' rights, the current trend is likely to continue. If more liberal justicesare appointed, however, any further movement toward the reestablishment of dualfederalism is unlikely.Permissive FederalismOne of the more controversial definitions of federalism, especially in light of currenttrends toward decentralization and the emphasis on "states rights," is the idea that thestates have only those powers and authorities permitted to them by the nationalgovernment. Permissive federalism, as this view is called, holds that the states aresubordinate to the national government and that they derive their existence andauthority from the national government.Many conservatives have taken exception with this view of federalism, most notablyRonald Reagan who asserted that it was the states that created the nationalgovernment and, therefore, the states were entitled to a comparatively greater share ofgovernmental authority and resources. This view however, was not supported by thefirst Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who declared:The Union is older than any of the states and, in fact, it created them as States. . . .The Union and not the states separately produced their independence and their liberty.. . . The Union gave each of them whatever independence and liberty it has.Lincoln's views of federalism were obviously motivated by the Civil War experience andthe belief that no state had the "right" to leave the Union. Lincoln's view, however, isnot entirely a defense of permissive federalism. In fact, it would probably be amisinterpretation to suggest that is was. However, the notion of national supremacyand the idea that the existence of the states is dependent upon the nationalgovernment provide fertile soil for the "permissive" view of federalism.Cooperative or "Marble Cake" FederalismIn response to the commonly held views of dual federalism and permissive federalism,both of which suggest an adversarial relationship between the national and stategovernments, some constitutional scholars have argued that attempts to draw linesbetween national and state governmental activities are counter-productive. Instead of atwo or three-layered, cake, they argued that the relationship between different levels ofgovernment in this nation is more like a marble cake, with swirls that cut across thelevels, often blurring the distinction between them. In practice:Functions are not neatly parceled out among the many governments. They are sharedfunctions. It is difficult to find any governmental activity which does not involve all threeof the so-called "levels" of the federal system. . . . Federal-state-local collaboration isthe characteristic mode of action.The "marble cake" metaphor suggests that the national and state governments arehighly interwoven and interdependent. Accordingly, another term for marble cakefederalism is cooperative federalism. According to this view, the national governmentand state governments are not, in fact, adversaries but rather different levels ofgovernment pursuing largely the same goals. For example, both national and stategovernments are interested in improving education, protecting the environment,promoting economic growth and reducing crime. To the extent that cooperation isfeasible and beneficial, national, state and local governments can and do work togetherto accomplish these goals.

Answer