Chapter 4: Federalism
Synopsis
A discussion of American federalism leads to a search for metaphors
that help explain the often perplexing division of power between national
and state and local governments. The initial conception of federalism
as two or more governments exercising power and authority over the
same people in the same territory gave rise to the Madisonian assumption
that the national government would concern itself with "the great
and aggregate interests," whereas state governments would attend to
"local and particular" matters. The adoption of a federal system of
government was seen as a solution to the problem of diversity and
heterogeneity and the attendant political maneuvering confronting
the young nation.
Selection of this type of political system also led to two contradictory
interpretations or myths of what federalism was envisioned to be.
The supremacy of states' rights is the major focus of dual
federalism. From this perspective, the Constitution is a compact
between sovereign states. Dual federalism views states as powerful
components of the federal system. The two levels of government operate
on different tracks and each is in control of its own activities.
From the perspective of cooperative federalism, the Constitution
represents an agreement made by the people who are citizens of both
the state and the nation. This view of federalism envisions the states
and the national government as intertwined, rather than as acting
in separate spheres.
The constitutional sections that ignite the federalism debate are
Article I, Section 8, which enumerates the powers allotted to Congress
and includes the necessary-and-proper or elastic clause, and the Tenth
Amendment, which says that "powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people." It is from the elastic
clause that the concept of implied powers, those powers not spelled
out but expected to be asserted by the national government to carry
out its enumerated responsibilities, was derived and defended as essential
because the framers of the Constitution could not anticipate all the
powers needed by a new nation and its government. States' rights advocates
interpreted the Tenth Amendment as placing firm limits on the scope
of national government.
An analysis of federalism that focuses primarily on formal constitutional
authority would be misleading because the actual balance between national
and state powers has always been largely a matter of practical politics.
The national government has assumed a far greater role than early
politicians would ever have imagined. This shift of power has come
about through constitutional amendments, legislative mandates and
incentives, and judicial interpretation.
During the 1950s and 1960s, the national government took on a new
task: the promotion of social equality through the diminution of racism
and poverty. The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme
Court decision and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, further limited states'
rights that had been used to deny equality for minority citizens.
President Johnson's War on Poverty, with its surge of social legislation,
increased the scope of the national government, augmented national
and state bureaucracies, and created new power centers by giving aid
directly to local governments and community groups. The Warren Court,
with its civil rights and reapportionment decisions, was also instrumental
in affirming the national government as the major power source.
The growth of national government programs aimed both at state and
local levels has led to charges of a federal system that is overresponsive
to interest groups, unmanageable, unaccountable, and excessive in
cost‹a pluralist nightmare, some would argue.
In recent years, both Republican and Democratic presidents have come
into office promising to reduce the federal bureaucracy and return
power to the states. However, despite presidential promises, Congress
continues to place demands on states and localities. Under the powers
of preemption, Congress enacts laws that encroach upon state
authority. Through both mandates (funded and unfunded) and
restraints, Congress can require states to accept its decisions.
Contemporary federalism has evolved from New Federalism to
New Age Federalism, in which Washington encourages states to
explore new options yet ultimately imposes federal solutions on problems.
One continuing issue for federalism is the cost of programs; most
states do not have the resources to provide for all the programs mandated
at the state, local, and federal levels.
Return to Top ©1998 by Houghton
Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Summary |
|
-
|
-
|
|
