UNIT 2: STRUCTURES OF GOVERNMENT U.S.

GOVERNMENT | JULIAN

Chapter 3 Federalism
Three systems of Government
There are basically three ways of organizing governmental structures. A unitary system places ultimate
governmental authority in the national government. A confederate system is a league of independent
states. A federal system divides government authority between a national government and state
governments.
Why Federalism?
The United States developed a federal system because it was a practical solution which retained state
traditions and local power, while creating a national government strong enough to avoid the problems
associated with the Articles of Confederation. Federalism also solved the problem of geographic size and
regional isolation. Other arguments for federalism include that it diffuses political dissatisfaction among
the different governments, it provides a training ground for future national leaders, it allows diverse
groups to develop in their own regions, and it brings government closer to the people. Certainly not
every political viewpoint supports federalism. Some of the arguments against federalism are that it
provides a way for powerful state and local interests to block national progress, it allows for the
possibility of expansion of national powers at the expense of states, and it establishes a way for
powerful state and local interests to deny equal rights for minorities.
The Constitutional Basis for American Federalism
While the Constitution does not directly refer to federalism, it does divide government power into
national government, state government, and powers prohibited to government. National governmental
power can be described as enumerated, implied, and inherent. Enumerated powers are found in the
first seventeen clauses of Article I, Section 8. Implied powers come from the necessary and proper
clause, the last clause of Article I, Section 8. Inherent powers derive from the fact that governments
have an inherent right to ensure their own survival. The Tenth Amendment gives to the states reserved
powers, which means that any power not given to the federal government or denied to the states is
reserved to the states. One of the most significant of the state powers is the police power, the authority
to legislate for the health, morals, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the states. National and state
governments share some powers, such as the power to tax. These shared powers are called concurrent
powers. Powers denied to government are called prohibited powers, and deny powers to both national
and state governments. The supremacy clause, Article VI, Paragraph 2 provides that federal laws are
superior to all conflicting state and local laws.
Defining Constitutional Powers The Early Years
To remain effective and relevant over the centuries, the Constitution had to be written in a somewhat
broad manner, allowing the Supreme Court to provide a more specific interpretation of the general
language. This was certainly the case with regard to the necessary and proper clause and the provision
giving Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. In the case of McCulloch v. Maryland
(1819) Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the necessary and proper clause of Article I, Section 8
embraced all means which are appropriate to carry out the legitimate ends of the Constitution, a ruling
that dramatically expanded the power of Congress as well as the power of the federal government
relative to the states. In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the power to regulate
interstate commerce in Article I, Section 8 was an exclusive national power and one that could be
employed in a vigorous fashion to regulate areas that had been considered the domain of the states.
UNIT 2: STRUCTURES OF GOVERNMENT U.S. GOVERNMENT | JULIAN

States Rights and the Resort to Civil War
The Jacksonian era (1829-1837) created a climate in which most southern states attempted to nullify
national laws, and to justify secession from the federal union. The defeat of the South in the Civil War
ended the theory of nullification and secession. The war effort created a larger and more powerful
national government, which for the first time imposed an income tax on its citizens.
The Continuing Dispute over the Division of Power
Although the outcome of the Civil War established the supremacy of the national government, the
debate over the division of authority has continued to this very day. In dual federalism, which ended in
the 1930s, the state governments and national government are viewed as separate entities, like
separate layers in a cake. Cooperative federalism, which emerged as the nation wrestled with the Great
Depression, involved the state governments and national government cooperating in solving problems,
like merged portions of a marble cake. In the 1960s, another metaphor for federalism emerged.
Picket-fence federalism added local government to the mix. The horizontal boards in the fence
represented the national, state and local governments, while the vertical pickets represent different
programs and policies in which each level of government worked to develop and implement a particular
policy.
One of the key features of cooperative federalism is money provided by the federal government to state
and local governments. Categorical grants-in-aid are designed for very specific programs or projects at
the state and local level and frequently come with specific conditions attached. Block grants provide
funding to state and local government for generally defined areas and then allow state and local
government the flexibility to use their expertise in spending the money. One of the major barriers to
returning authority to state and local dominance is the federal mandate, a requirement in federal
legislation that forces states and local governments to comply with certain rules established by the
federal government.
The Politics of Federalism
Generally throughout United States history, conservatives have favored the state governments, and
liberals have favored the national government. For the most part the national government has been
used as the engine of change, the means by which more liberal programs including welfare and civil
rights are imposed upon the nation. States typically favor the status quo and resist these changes, thus
gaining the favor of conservatives. This dichotomy is captured in the differences between the
presidencies of Lyndon Johnson, who favored an activist federal approach to solving problems and
Ronald Reagan, who advocated allowing states to take the lead in solving the problems of the people.
Federalism and the Supreme Court
After an initial period of opposition to an activist federal government in the 1930s, the Supreme Court
approved an expanded federal role for much of the twentieth century. Congress began to use its power
to regulate interstate commerce as the justification for a dramatically expanded legislative role and the
Supreme Court consistently upheld this adventurous approach to policymaking. In the 1990s however
the Supreme Court sought to limit national government power and breathe new life into the Tenth
Amendment. In the case of United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court struck down the Gun-Free School
Zones Act of 1990, arguing that the congressional power under the commerce clause was not unlimited
and definitely had no applicability to the issue of guns in schools. This was a matter for the states, not
Congress. In Printz v. United States (1997), provisions in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of
1993 requiring state employees to perform background checks was ruled unconstitutional.