federalism-blog-2

Document Sample
federalism-blog-2 Powered By Docstoc
					Federalism
 AP Government
    & Politics
     Unit 2
              Types of Governments
1. Democracy The word "democracy"          Today, typically, the term "aristocracy" is
    literally means "rule by the people."     used negatively to accuse a republic of
    In a democracy, the people govern.        being dominated by rich people, such
2. Republic A literal democracy is            as saying, "The United States has
    impossible in a political system          become an aristocracy.“
    containing more than a few people. 5. Dictatorship A dictatorship consists of
    All "democracies" are really              rule by one person or a group of
    republics. In a republic, the people      people. Very few dictators admit they
    elect representatives to make and         are dictators; they almost always claim
    enforce laws.                             to be leaders of democracies. The
3. Monarchy A monarchy consists of            dictator may be one person, such as
    rule by a king or queen. Sometimes        Castro in Cuba or Hitler in Germany,
    a king is called an "emperor,"            or a group of people, such as the
    especially if there is a large empire,    Communist Party in China.
    such as China before 1911. There are 6. Democratic Republic Usually, a
    no large monarchies today. The            "democratic republic" is not democratic
    United Kingdom, which has a               and is not a republic. A government
    queen, is really a republic because       that officially calls itself a "democratic
    the queen has virtually no political      republic" is usually a dictatorship.
    power.                                    Communist dictatorships have been
4. Aristocracy An aristocracy is rule by      especially prone to use this term. For
    the aristocrats. Aristocrats are          example, the official name of North
    typically wealthy, educated people.       Vietnam was "The Democratic Republic
    Many monarchies have really been          of Vietnam." China uses a variant, "The
    ruled by aristocrats.                     People's Republic of China."
     Three Ways Power is Shared
  Between a National Government
• Unitary
          and States/Sub-Units
  – One strong national government
     • Example: Great Britain
     • Most of the world uses this type
• Confederal
  – Strong states or regions with a weak national
    government
     • Example: The Articles of Confederation, the Confederacy
• Federal*
  – A strong central government that shares power with
    states or regions
     • Example: The United States
                Federalism
• Federalism is the theory or advocacy of federal
  political orders, where final authority is divided
  between sub-units and a center.
• Federalism refers to the apportioning of power
  between the federal government and the states.
• In a federal system, the national government
  holds significant power, but the smaller
  political subdivisions also hold significant
  power. The United States, Canada, Australia,
  and Brazil are examples of federal systems.
Federalism Terms to Know
•Dual Federalism
•Cooperative Federalism
  – Creative Federalism
•New Federalism
•Fiscal Federalism
Models of Federal Governments
Dual Federalism   Cooperative Federalism
             Dual Federalism
• Dual Federalism, holds that the federal
  government and the state governments are co-
  equals, and each are sovereign.
• In this theory, parts of the Constitution are
  interpreted very narrowly.
• In this case, there is a very large group of powers
  belonging to the states, and the federal
  government is limited to only those powers
  explicitly listed in the Constitution.
• In this narrow interpretation, the federal
  government has jurisdiction only if the
  Constitution clearly grants such.
   – Examples: 10th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause,
     the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce
     Clause.
        AKA…
“Layer Cake Federalism"
 Examples of Dual Federalism
• Laissez faire or hands off business
  – Gilded Age
• The Dred Scott decision
   – States can decide about slave laws
• Jim Crow laws
   – States can decide about
     segregation/integration
   – Plessey v Ferguson
      The Switch from Dual to
      Cooperative Federalism
• The shift from Dual to Cooperative
  Federalism was a slow one, but it was
  steady from the New Deal to the late
  20th century.
• Dual federalism is not completely dead,
  but for the most part, the United States'
  branches of government operate under
  the presumption of a cooperative
  federalism.
     Cooperative Federalism
• This theory asserts that the national government
  is supreme over the states, and the 10th
  Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the
  Necessary and Proper Clause, and the
  Commerce Clause have entirely different
  meaning than in the Dual Federalism theory.
• A good illustration of the broad interpretation of
  this part of the Constitution is exemplified by the
  Necessary and Proper Clause's other common
  name: the Elastic Clause.
        AKA…
“Marble Cake Federalism"
        Examples of
    Cooperative Federalism
• NCLB
• The New Deal
  – Government programs to end the
    Great Depression
• The Great Society
  – Government programs to end
    discrimination AND to provide for
    those less fortunate
 Cooperative Federalism & Grants
• “Cooperative Federalism" included an explosion
  of grants that reached beyond the states to
  establish intergovernmental links at all levels,
  often bypassing states entirely.
  – AKA as “picket fence federalism"
  – AKA as Creative Federalism
• Started with the Morrill Land Grant of 1862
  – federal government gave each state 30,000 of public
    land for each representative in Congress
  – the money from the sale of the lands was to establish
    and support agricultural and mechanical arts colleges
    (UGA, Texas A & M, Michigan State…)
               New Federalism
• New Federalism is the arrangement of
  administrative reforms with a devolutionary
  objective.
   – This idea began during modern presidential
     administrations starting with Richard Nixon.
   – Ronald Reagan’s campaigns centered around
     devolution
• It included decentralization of national programs
  to regions, streamlining of federal services, and
  the redirection of funds towards other levels of
  government.
• It also included efforts to reduce national control
  over the grants-in-aid programs and revise the
  character of federal involvement in general
  welfare spending.
   Did “New Federalism” Ever
          Really Exist?
• From 1980-1989
  – Municipalities were required to monitor pollution
    from thousands of storm sewers and to test for 77
    additional chemicals in municipal water supplies.
    Local governments were also required to control 83
    new drinking water contaminants.
  – School districts were required to identify asbestos
    hazards and remove them from local schools.
  – States were required to prepare reports on 152 new
    endangered species.
  – States were required to monitor and enforce actions
    requiring businesses and industries to establish and
    maintain programs to protect hearing and guard
    against exposure to certain dangerous chemicals
    and asbestos.
  Federal Mandates (the stick)
• Federal laws that direct state and local
  governments to comply with federal standards,
  rules, or regulations
  – Federal Clean Air Act
• 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.
• This is called an Unfunded Mandate
  – Example: Endangered Species Act
  – Passed by Congress in 1973, which imposes federal
    mandates on states to protect animal species that are
    deemed in danger of becoming extinct.
  – States have NO CHOICE but to follow this Act
    whether or not money is supplied by the feds
          Unfunded Mandates
          Reform Act of 1995
• Prevented Congress from passing costly federal
  programs along to the states with at least a
  debate on how to fund them
• With its origins in the ‘Devolution Revolution’
  (Republican- Contract with America), UMRA
  was designed to make it more difficult for the
  federal government to make state and local
  governments pay for programs and projects
  that it refuses to pay for itself.
  – Unfortunately, UMRA largely has proven to be a
    case of promises unfulfilled
      Federal Grants (the carrot)
• The federal government transfers payments or
  shares its revenues with lower levels of
  government via federal grants.
  –   It’s all about the money!!!!
  –   Who has it (the national government)
  –   Who wants it (the states)
  –   And who gets it (the states who jump through the
      right hoops)
• Federal governments use this power to enforce
  national rules and standards by opening and
  closing its “purse strings” for the states
            Revenue Sharing
• The transfer of tax revenue to the states
   – Congress gave an annual amount of federal tax
     revenue to the states and their cities, counties and
     townships.
• Revenue sharing was extremely popular with
  state officials, but it lost federal support during
  the Reagan Administration.
• In 1987, revenue sharing was replaced with
  block grants in smaller amounts to reduce the
  federal deficit
   Two Types of Grants-in Aid
• Block grants
     • Grants provided to the states from the federal
       government with few strings attached
     • For example, a grant for transportation but the
       state can decide which roads will be built or where
       they will be located Categorical grants
• Categorical grants
     • Grants provided to the states from the federal
       government with many strings attached
     • For example, a grant for roads but the federal
       government decides where the road will go or
       which road can be widened can decide which road
             Welfare Act of 1996
• AKA…The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
  Reconciliation Act
• Was signed in to law on August 22, 1996, by President Bill
  Clinton.
   – It was a bipartisan effort with the Republican Congress
• It dramatically changed the nation's welfare system into
  one that required work in exchange for time-limited
  assistance.
• The law contained
   – strong work requirements
   – a performance bonus to reward states for moving welfare
     recipients into jobs
   – state maintenance of effort requirements
   – comprehensive child support enforcement
   – and supports for families moving from welfare to work --
     including increased funding for child care and guaranteed medical
     coverage."
 Important Supreme Court Cases
    Concerning Federalism
• South Dakota v Dole
• U.S. v Lopez
• Printz v U.S.
• Boumediene v. Bush
• District of Columbia v. Heller
• Bush v Gore
South Dakota vs. Dole (1987)
• The withholding of federal highway funds followed
  a study of teenage driving and alcohol-related
  accidents
• The federal government required states to raise
  their drinking age to 21 in order to receive highway
  funds
• South Dakota claimed that the law is
  unconstitutional because the 21st amendment gave
  power to the states for regulating alcoholic
  beverages.
   – The state filed suit against Secretary of Transportation
     Elizabeth Dole
• Can Congress withhold federal funding in order to
  force a state to pass legislation it deems useful?
      Decision and Importance
• Decision: “Yes!”
• Why important? The provision was
  designed to serve the general welfare AND
  it was held that even if Congress lacks the
  power to impose a national minimum
  drinking age directly, the “non-
  requirement” aspect of the regulation was a
  valid exercise of Congress' spending power
  and upheld states rights
  United States vs. Lopez (1995)
• Was the first modern Supreme Court case to
  set limits to Congress's lawmaking power.
  – Alfonso Lopez, Jr. carried a handgun and bullets
    into his high school.
  – He was charged with violating Section 922(q) of
    the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.
• The government believed that the possession
  of a firearm at a school falls under
  jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause.
        Decision and Importance
• The Court said, “NO!” to Commerce Clause
  in Lopez
  – Too much of a stretch to connect guns in school
    to commerce
  – Federal government had overstretched it’s
    boundaries
  – Forced states to create the gun laws themselves.
  – Why important? Interstate commerce, gun-free
    school zones can not be federally mandated
    (states rights)
  – Was this a change in the direction of the Court?
 Printz vs. United States (1997)
• Reagan’s press secretary, James Brady was
  seriously injured during the assassination
  attempt
• He later lobbied for stricter gun controls
  and background checks - these passed and
  became known as the “Brady Bill”
• Printz was a sheriff who challenged the
  Brady Bill charging that it violated the 10th
  Amendment
  – Did the federal mandated law take it too far??
               Importance
• The Court said “YES!’
• The Court ruled in favor of Printz, ruling that
  Congress may not require the States to
  administer a federal regulatory program and
  that the Act violated the Tenth Amendment to
  the U.S. Constitution
  – The decision overturned requirements for local
    enforcement of the background checks
• Why important? The states are no longer
  subordinates in all power disputes involving
  unfunded mandates
  Habeas Corpus “You have the Body”
• A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial
  mandate to a prison official ordering that
  an inmate be brought to the court so it can
  be determined whether or not that person
  is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not
  he should be released from custody.
   – Prisoners often seek release by filing a
      petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed
  with a court by a person who objects to his
  own or another's detention or
  imprisonment.
   – The petition must show that the court
      ordering the detention or imprisonment
      made a legal or factual error.
  Boumediene v. Bush (2008):
• Facts of the Case:
• In 2002 Lakhdar Boumediene and five other Algerian
  natives were seized by Bosnian police when U.S.
  intelligence officers suspected their involvement in a
  plot to attack the U.S. embassy there. The U.S.
  government classified the men as enemy combatants in
  the war on terror and detained them at the
  Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which is located on land
  that the U.S. leases from Cuba.
• Questions of Law:
• Did Boumediene, as an alien detained at an overseas
  military base, have no right to a habeas petition?
• Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be
  interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over
  habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the
  U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
                 Importance
• No and Yes (5-4 split decision)
• The Court ruled that because the procedures laid
  out in the Detainee Treatment Act are not
  adequate substitutes for the habeas writ, the
  MCA operates as an unconstitutional suspension
  of that writ.
• The detainees were not barred from seeking
  habeas or invoking the Suspension Clause merely
  because they had been designated as enemy
  combatants or held at Guantanamo Bay.
             Amendment II

• A well regulated militia, being necessary
  to the security of a free state, the right
  of the people to keep and bear arms,
  shall not be infringed.



• What exactly does that mean???
            Amendment II

• A well regulated militia, being necessary
                               ,
 to the security of a free state (or
 should it be a semi-colon ??) the right of
 the people to keep and bear arms, shall
 not be infringed.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
• For the first time in seventy years, the Court
  heard a case regarding the central meaning of the
  Second Amendment and its relation to gun
  control laws.
• After the District of Columbia passed legislation
  barring the registration of handguns, requiring
  licenses for all pistols, and mandating that all
  legal firearms must be kept unloaded and
  disassembled or trigger locked, a group of private
  gun-owners brought suit claiming the laws
  violated their Second Amendment right to bear
  arms.
• Do local government have the right to impose
  such strict laws concerning guns?
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
• Decision
• No!
• In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the
  Second Amendment protects an individual
  right to possess a firearm unconnected with
  service in a militia, and to use that firearm
  for traditionally lawful purposes, such as
  self-defense within the home.
           Bush v. Gore (2000)
• Facts of the Case:
  – Following the closely contested 2000 presidential
     election, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that
     the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand
     9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade County.
  – It also ordered that every county in Florida must
     immediately begin manually recounting all "under-
     votes" (ballots which did not indicate a vote for
     president) because there were enough contested
     ballots to place the outcome of the election in
     doubt.
  – Governor George Bush and his running mate,
     Richard Cheney, filed a request for review in the
     U.S. Supreme Court and sought an emergency
     petition to reverse the Florida Supreme Court's
     decision.
        Bush v. Gore (2000)
• Questions of Law:

  1.Did the Florida Supreme Court
    violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of
    the U.S. Constitution by making new
    election law?
  2.Do standardless manual recounts
    violate the Equal Protection and Due
    Process Clauses of the Constitution?
                   Importance
In a hotly contested, 5-4 decision the Supreme Court
    ruled for Florida Governor Jeb Bush
• Yes
    Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees
    individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by
    "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the opinion
    held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for
    recounting ballots was unconstitutional.
2. Yes
    Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in
    practice. The record suggested that different
    standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct
    to precinct, and county to county.
    Read Your
    Chapters!!

(Many) More Supreme
Court cases to come…


  
   

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:2/14/2012
language:
pages:41