Federalism

WHAT IS FEDERALISM?
Federalism is a form of government that divides sovereign power across at least two political units. In the context of the
United States, power is divided among the national and state governments so that each government has some independent
authority. Concurrent powers, which are areas of policy that are the shared responsibility of federal, state, and local
governments, demand a great degree of negotiation among the different government units to enact policy.

Federalism in Comparative Perspective

A government is federalist only if it consists of at least two autonomous political subunits. Various forms of
government are observed internationally, including:
o
o

Unitary government: a system in which the national, centralized government holds ultimate
authority. It is the most common form of government in the world.
Confederal government: a form of government in which states hold power over a limited
national government. This was the first form of government in the United States under the Articles
of Confederation.

Unitary systems are much more common than federal systems because federal systems are complicated and
involve frequent disagreements over divisions of power. Federalism also has the potential to promote regional
and ethnic separation but can serve as an important tool in settling differences within a country.

Balancing National and State Power in the Constitution

The Founders wanted a strong national government to provide national security and a healthy and efficient
economy. If any state law or constitution conflicts with national law or the Constitution, the national perspective
wins. State autonomy is protected in many ways, including its power to choose the electoral college and to
amend the Constitution. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution for the states or the people, and the Eleventh Amendment prohibits citizens from
suing the government of a state other than their own. Two other clauses of the Constitution are very important
for federalism:
o

Full faith and credit clause: part of Article IV of the Constitution requiring that each states
laws be honored by the other states. For example, a legal marriage in one state must be recognized
across state lines.
Privileges and immunities clause: part of Article IV of the Constitution requiring that states
must treat nonstate residents within their borders as they would treat their own residents. This was
meant to promote commerce and travel between states.

THE EVOLVING CONCEPT OF FEDERALISM

Ideology
Throughout the history of the United States, several clashes have occurred between proponents of nationcentered and state-centered federalism. Certain ideologies emerged to protect states rights:

o
o

Doctrine of interposition: the idea that if the national government passes an unconstitutional
law, the people of the states (through their state legislatures) can declare the law void
States rights: the idea that states are entitled to a certain amount of self-government, free of
federal government intervention

Dual Federalism
From our nations early history through the 1930s, the country operated under dual federalism. Under dual
federalism, national and state governments are seen as distinct entities providing separate services. This
model limits the powers of the national government to those strictly enumerated in the Constitution. Several
disputes over the nature of federalism were resolved in the following landmark Supreme Court decisions:
o
o
o
o

Chrisholm v. Georgia (1793): allowed citizens of one state to sue citizens of another state; led to the
Eleventh Amendment, which prohibited such lawsuits
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): upheld the national governments right to create a bank and
reaffirmed the idea of national supremacy
Barron v. Baltimore (1833): endorsed a notion of dual federalism in which the rights of a U.S.
citizen under the Bill of Rights did not apply to the same person under state law
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): sided with southern states view that slaves were property and ruled
that the Missouri Compromise violated the 5th Amendment, since making slavery illegal in some
states deprived slave owners of property; contributed to the start of the Civil War
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937): upheld the
National Labor Relations Act of 1935 as consistent with Congresss commerce clause powers,
reversing the Courts more narrow interpretation of that clause

The Supreme Court also aimed to limit the power of the federal government through commerce clause
powers, which delineate Congresss ability to regulate the economy in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution.
Clear boundaries between interstate and intrastate commerce were defined, and Congress is prohibited from
regulating any economic activity that occurs within a state.

Cooperative Federalism
Whereas dual federalism specifically defines the boundaries of state and national responsibilities, a more
nebulous form of federalism emerged during the Progressive Era and blossomed in the late 1930s with New Deal
legislation. Under cooperative federalism, or marble cake federalism, national and state governments work
together to provide services efficiently. Cooperative federalism provided a practical approach to
intergovernmental relations as more complex problems arose that could not be addressed at one level of
government.
Modern federalism is better represented by a picket fence metaphor, as the lines of authority and patterns of
cooperation are not as messy as those implied by the marble cake. Picket fence federalism is a more
refined and realistic form of cooperative federalism in which policy makers within a particular policy area work
together across the levels of government. Cooperative federalism is most likely to emerge within policy areas
rather than across them.

FEDERALISM TODAY

Although the American system of government is predominantly characterized by cooperative federalism, elements of
national supremacy, dual federalism, and states rights are still prevalent. The current period could therefore be considered
the era of balanced federalism.

Cooperative Federalism Lives On: Grants in Aid and Fiscal Federalism

The cooperative relationship between the national and state governments is rooted in the system of transfer
payments from the national government to lower levels of government, which is called fiscal federalism.
Three types of grants are common under this system:
o

o
o

Categorical grants consist of federal aid to state or local governments that is provided for a
specific purpose, such as a mass transit program within the transportation budget or a school lunch
program within the education budget.
Block grants consist of federal aid provided to a state government to be spent within a certain
policy area, which the state can decide how to spend within that area.
General revenue sharing (GRS) was a type of grant used in the 1970s and 80s in which the
federal government provided state governments with funds to be spent at each states discretion.
These grants provided states with more control over programs. Support for GRS was difficult to
sustain because it was opposed by conservatives who wanted a smaller national government and by
liberals who favored more targeted spending.

New Federalism
Beginning in 1969 with Richard Nixons presidency, New Federalism attempted to shift power to the states by
consolidating categorical grants into block grants and giving the states authority over programs such as welfare.
This practice was continued under President Reagan, who believed that because state and local politicians were
closer to the people, they would know better how to spend the money. Furthermore, under President Clinton,
Congress made it more difficult to impose unfunded mandates, federal laws that require the states to do
certain things but do not provide state governments with funding to implement these policies. Although these
changes were favorable for states, the balance of power between national and state government has not been
affected.

National Supremacy Reigns? The Rise of Coercive Federalism

Despite the overall shift toward cooperative federalism, the role of national government is reinforced by three
characteristics of American politics: (1) turning to national government in times of crisis and war, (2) the rights
revolution of the 1950s and 60s, and Great Society programs of the 1960s, and (3) the rise of coercive
federalism. Coercive federalism is a form of federalism in which the federal government pressures the states
to change their policies by using regulations, mandates, and conditions (often involving threats to withdraw
federal funding). Coercion also exists in the form of federal preemptions, impositions of national priorities
on the states through national legislation that is based on the Constitutions supremacy clause.
A significant shift toward national power took place during the presidency of George W. Bush. National power
emerged in areas that had been controlled by states, including mandates and preemptions in education testing,
sales tax collection, emergency management, infrastructure, and elections administration. This is noteworthy
because the shift took place under Republicans, who generally favor states rights.

The States Fight Back

States appear to be reversing their traditional role of resisting change and protecting the status quo. In recent
years, states have taken the lead over the federal government to address issues such as pollution and global
warming. Motivation for state leadership can be explained by competitive federalism, a form of federalism in
which states compete to attract businesses and jobs through the policies they adopt. Supporters point out that

such competition is also a check on tyranny because people will move to a different state if they do not like a
states policies.
Despite the positive outcomes of competitive federalism, states may also be driven to compete in a negative way.
For instance, when states compete for businesses and jobs, they may eliminate environmental regulations or
employee benefits to keep expenses low.

FIGHTING FOR STATES RIGHTS: THE ROLE OF THE MODERN SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court, in recent years, has ruled in favor of state power. Between the 1980s and 90s, the Supreme Court
invalidated more national laws on federalist grounds than in the previous two centuries.

The 10th Amendment

The 10th Amendment ensures that all powers not delegated to the national government are reserved to the
states or to the people. The Supreme Court has sought to protect this amendment in recent years by restricting
Congresss power. For example, when seeking to limit the power of states, Congress must provide an
unambiguous statement of its intent to overrule state authority.

The 14th Amendment

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment guarantees that no state shall make or enforce any law depriving any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or denying any person the equal protection of the laws,
while Section 5 empowers Congress to enforce those guarantees by appropriate legislation. Although
narrowly interpreted throughout the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court leaned toward a broad
interpretation during the twentieth century, giving Congress discretion to remedy bad state laws. In the
federalism revolution of the 1990s, however, the Supreme Court again favored a narrow interpretation of the
amendment. For example, in 1997, it struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, ruling that it was an
overly broad attempt to prohibit state-sponsored harassment based on religion. This case offers an example of
remedial legislation, whereby national laws address discriminatory state laws. The logic behind remedial
legislation has also been applied to the 11th Amendment, which was originally interpreted to mean that state
governments could not be sued by residents of other states. Recently, however, the Supreme Court expanded the
reach of the 11th Amendment through the concept of states sovereign immunity, which protects states from
a much broader range of lawsuits in state and federal court unless the state consents to the suit.

The Commerce Clause

The commerce clause is part of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to regulate
Commerce . . . among the several States. In United States v. Lopez (1995), Congress cited its control over
interstate commerce as a means to regulate gun control within schools. The Supreme Court ruled against
Congress, stating that Congress would have to demonstrate that the law in question was explicitly related to the
commerce clause.

ASSESSING FEDERALISM

An evaluation of federalism must consider the advantages and disadvantages for our political system. The advantages of
strong state rights include: (1) states can be laboratories for democracy, (2) state and local governments are closer to the
people, (3) states provide more access to the political system, and (4) states provide an important check on national power.
Of course, there are also problems associated with a federalist system that gives too much power to the states: (1) unequal
distribution of resources across the states, (2) unequal protection for civil rights, and (3) competitive federalism, which
produces a race to the bottom.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Federalism

The pros and cons of federalism have been the subject of debate since the creation
of the republic.
Federalisms Advantages
Proponents argue that federalism does the following:

Fosters state loyalties:Many Americans feel close ties to their home state,
and federalism maintains that connection by giving power to the states.

Practices pragmatism: Running a country the size of the United States,

with such a diverse population, is much easier to do if power is given to local
officials. Likewise, state and local officials are closer to the problems of their
areas, so it makes sense for them to choose policies to solve those problems.

Creates laboratories of democracy: State governments can experiment

with policies, and other states (and the federal government) can learn from
their successes and failures.

Example: California has frequently led the nation in environmental regulations:

Many measures adopted by California are subsequently adopted by other states.
And during the 1990s, Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson experimented with
welfare policy, and those experiments influenced federal welfare reform.

Leads to political stability: By removing the national government from

some contentious issue areas, federalism allowed the early U.S. government to
achieve and maintain stability.

Encourages pluralism: Federal systems expand government on national,

state, and local levels, giving people more access to leaders and opportunities
to get involved in their government.

Ensures the separation of powers and prevents tyranny: Even if one

person or group took control of all three branches of the federal government,
federalism ensures that state governments would still function independently.
Federalism, therefore, fulfills the framers vision of a governmental structure
that ensures liberty.

Federalisms Disadvantages
Critics argue that federalism falls short in two ways:

Prevents the creation of a national policy: The United States does not
have a single policy on issues; instead, it has fifty-one policies, which often
leads to confusion.

Leads to a lack of accountability: The overlap of the boundaries among

national and state governments makes it tricky to assign blame for failed
policies.

Citizen Ignorance
Critics argue that federalism cannot function well due to ignorance. Most Americans
know little about their state and local governments, and turnout in state and local
elections is often less than 25 percent. Citizens consequently often ignore state and
local governments, even though these governments have a lot of power to affect
peoples lives.