RC Environmental Projects Question

User Generated

rxnqmb

Health Medical

Rassmusen College

Description

Assignment one

Discussion question  1

Please respond to the following discussion,

American political history can be understood as a perennial battle between state power and national power. In recent times, the COVID-19 pandemic is perhaps the greatest instance of this conceptual struggle. Refer to the case analysis from the reading material "Federalism in Action: Case Studies". Should more or less power be given to the national government than currently exists? Explain your answer using relevant topics and arguments (for example, debates over gay marriage, gun control, educational standards, environmental protections, COVID-19, etc.).

Here are some key concepts that are helpful for you to draft your post: dual federalism, cooperative federalism, new federalism, The Tenth Amendment and state power, reserved powers, concurrent powers, enumerated power, Supremacy Clause.

Your initial discussion postings 300 words should demonstrate an understanding and analysis of the assigned readings and videos. It may be helpful to reference the assigned material in your response demonstrating connections between your thoughts and the course resources. 

Discussion Question 2

People differ on the need for and role of the government. Government is the legitimate use of force to control behavior. It is legitimate in that citizens have surrendered some rights willingly to government in exchange for the services provided by the government. The Preamble to the Constitution indicates the willingness of citizens to surrender to the government for the sake of common good (to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility and secure the blessing of liberty).

Based on your understanding of the role of government from the assigned readings, what is the appropriate balance between government and freedom in the American democracy? Do you think government should be more active, providing assistance to achieve a common good for all citizens; or, should government be more limited, involved only to the extent that it protects individual rights and liberties?" Explain your answer.

Your initial discussion postings 300 words should demonstrate an understanding and analysis of the assigned readings and video. It may be helpful to reference the assigned material in your response demonstrating connections between your thoughts and the course resources. 

Assignment two

Discussion question 1

Please respond to the following discussion,

American political history can be understood as a perennial battle between state power and national power. In recent times, the COVID-19 pandemic is perhaps the greatest instance of this conceptual struggle. Refer to the case analysis from the reading material "Federalism in Action: Case Studies". Should more or less power be given to the national government than currently exists? Explain your answer using relevant topics and arguments (for example, debates over gay marriage, gun control, educational standards, environmental protections, COVID-19, etc.).

Here are some key concepts that are helpful for you to draft your post: dual federalism, cooperative federalism, new federalism, The Tenth Amendment and state power, reserved powers, concurrent powers, enumerated power, Supremacy Clause.

Your initial discussion postings 300 words should demonstrate an understanding and analysis of the assigned readings and videos. It may be helpful to reference the assigned material in your response demonstrating connections between your thoughts and the course resources. 

Discussion Question 2

People differ on the need for and role of the government. Government is the legitimate use of force to control behavior. It is legitimate in that citizens have surrendered some rights willingly to government in exchange for the services provided by the government. The Preamble to the Constitution indicates the willingness of citizens to surrender to the government for the sake of common good (to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility and secure the blessing of liberty).

Based on your understanding of the role of government from the assigned readings, what is the appropriate balance between government and freedom in the American democracy? Do you think government should be more active, providing assistance to achieve a common good for all citizens; or, should government be more limited, involved only to the extent that it protects individual rights and liberties?" Explain your answer.


Unformatted Attachment Preview

Chapter Thirteen State and Local Government Ross C. Alexander Learning Objectives After covering the topic of state and local government, students should understand: 1. The structure, functioning, and common components of state governments in the U.S. 2. The structure and functioning of the various types of local governments in the U.S. 3. The degree to which state and local government affects the lives of citizens on a daily basis. 4. How states and local governments have had to increasingly rely on alternative funding strategies to generate operating revenue and address budget de¿cits. Abstract There are over 87,000 (U.S. Census Bureau) governments in the United States—one federal government, 50 state governments, and tens of thousands of local governments (cities, townships, counties, special districts, etc.), yet we often overlook these vital governmental entities that impact our lives on a daily basis. In addition to exploring the basic composition, administration, and functioning of state and local government, this chapter explains how individuals can become more involved and engaged in the public policy decisions of their communities. Then, this chapter addresses the various funding strategies that states, counties, and cities have had to devise and employ to deliver services in the current economic crisis, many of which are innovative, non-traditional, and driven by necessity. Introduction )ormer SpeaNer of the U.S. House of Representatives Thomas µµTip¶¶ 2¶1eill once famously Tuipped that µµAll politics is local.¶¶ :hether or not this statement is entirely accurate is open to debate, but the notion that state and local government has an effect on the daily lives of citizens is undisputable. Most government exchanges and interactions are with agents of state and local government and include such of¿ces and of¿cials as: public school teachers, police of¿cers, social worNers, county 290 The Basics of American Government commissioners, city councilors, city and county managers, building inspectors, city planners, parNs and recreation directors, ¿re¿ghters, tax assessors, code enforcers, economic developers, city engineers, city and county clerks, state regulators, park rangers, bus drivers, and more. (lected and appointed of¿cials at the state and local level make policy decisions in the areas of education, transportation, taxation, land use, growth and development, health care, emergency management, social services, immigration, and environmental protection, among others. They shape and control budgets and expenditures ranging from the small (tens of thousands of dollars) to the large (tens of billions of dollars). Increasingly, as citizens clamor for more government services delivered more ef¿ciently and effectively (without tax increases), state and local governments must devise strategies to generate revenue and meet citizen demands. 9oter turnout for state and local elections is less than turnout in national level, especially presidential, elections. Traditionally, the lower the level of government, the lower the rate of voter turnout, which is unfortunate considering that these µµlower¶¶ levels of government are closest to the people. It is not uncommon for voter turnout for primary elections at the local level to be in the single digits (Hajnal and Lewis, 2003). 6tate *overnPents Constitutional Authority The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, µµThe 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.’’ This so-called Reserved Powers Clause, although simply-written, is the constitutional basis for federalism and has resulted in a great deal of controversy and strained relations between the federal government and the states (as described in detail in earlier chapters). Nevertheless, state governments were created as co-equal entities by the framers of the Constitution and are therefore constitutionally-legitimate. Article I, Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution explains in detail powers given to the federal government (speci¿cally Congress), powers shared by the federal government and state governments (called concurrent powers), and powers given exclusively to the states. Examples of powers given to the federal government and Congress solely include regulating interstate commerce, coining money, declaring war, raising an army, and Chapter Thirteen: State and Local Government 291 making laws µµnecessary and proper.’’ Examples of concurrent powers that the federal government shares with the states include collecting taxes, establishing courts, borrowing money, making and enforcing laws, and chartering banks and corporations. Finally, powers that states possess exclusively include establishing local governments, regulating intrastate commerce, conducting elections, and ratifying amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As society has become more complex and as citizens have demanded more services, government has expanded exponentially at all levels. Today, states make policy decisions affecting millions of people, concerning millions and billions of dollars. State Constitutions Because of federalism, states are constitutionally-legitimate entities and each state, therefore, has its own constitution. Many state constitutions (such as those of 9irginia, South Carolina, and New Hampshire) existed prior to the writing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 and were models and guides for the deligates to the Constitutional Convention. James Madison, in fact, utilized the 9irginia constitution of 177, written by Thomas Jefferson, as a template for the 9irginia 3lan which greatly inÀuenced the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is brief (roughly 7,400 words including the Bill of Rights) in comparison to most state constitutions, which are longer and more detailed, averaging roughly 26,000 words, and therefore less Àexible. For example, Alabama’s constitution adopted in 1901 is over 300,000 words. Even 9ermont’s constitution, which is the shortest, is over 8,300 words—longer than the U.S. Constitution (Hammons, 1999, 840). While the hallmark of the U.S. Constitution is its Àexibility and endurance, having only been amended 17 times since 1791, state constitutions are amended much more frequently (115 times on average), or as is the case with many states, re-crafted altogether. Most states have had several constitutions since 1776. An exception is the Massachusetts constitution, rati¿ed in 1780, which is the longestenduring written constitution in the world (Kincaid, 1988, 13). The current *eorgia constitution was rati¿ed in 1983, is the µµnewest’’ state constitution, and, in fact, is the 10th constitution in the state’s history. The original U.S. Constitution has endured since it was rati¿ed in 1789. 2n the contrary, there have been 145 different state constitutions since 1776 (Hammons, 1999, 838). Louisiana has had 11 constitutions; Georgia 10; 292 The Basics of American Government South Carolina 7; Florida, Alabama, and 9irginia 6; and Arkansas, Texas, and Pennsylvania 5 (Hammons, 1999, 841). Another primary difference between the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions is the location of the Bills of Rights. In the national version, the Bill of Rights is not a formal component of the document itself, but rather the ¿rst 10 amendments. In most state versions, the Bill of Rights is found in the beginning and often in the very ¿rst section (which is true for the Georgia Constitution). Because state constitutions are longer, more detailed, amended more frequently, and less Àexible, they can provide additional protections for citizens, something which has led to judicial evolution at the state level, inÀuencing the actions of lawmakers and the decisions of judges (Kincaid, 1988). How Institutions Function in the States Like the federal government and the U.S. Constitution, state governments and constitutions outline separate branches of government with checks and balances that share power. In every state, the chief executive is the governor. The lawmaking body is the state legislature, often called the General Assembly. Forty-nine states utilize a bicameral legislature. Nebraska’s unicameral legislature is the only exception. The highest courts in the states are referred to collectively as µµcourts of last resort’’ because not every state refers to its highest court as the µµsupreme’’ court (the Georgia Supreme Court is the highest court in the state). Just as the framers intended that Congress be the strongest branch of government, state legislatures, as described by most state constitutions, are intended to be the strongest entity in state governments. However, just as has been the case with the evolution of presidential power, governors in the states have gained a tremendous amount of power at the expense of state legislatures over time. As a result, governors today are probably much stronger than intended in many cases. The traditional powers of governors, those usually listed explicitly in state constitutions, are similar to the powers of the president (Beyle, 1968). Governors traditionally possess the power to appoint of¿cials in the Executive Branch, oversee state agencies, veto legislation, call the state legislature into general session, dispatch the national guard in times of crisis and emergency, and craft the budget, among others. In an informal sense, governors also serve as chief of their respective parties, spokespersons and ambassadors for their states, and chief lobbyists with Chapter Thirteen: State and Local Government 293 their state legislatures, putting pressure on members to enact their agendas and policies. In terms of length of gubernatorial terms and re-eligibility, states vary tremendously. Most governors serve four-year terms, but a few serve two-year terms, as is the case in New Hampshire and 9ermont. Governors in 38 states are limited to two terms of of¿ce, the Governor of 9irginia is limited to one term of of¿ce, and the remaining are not termlimited (National Governors Association, 2010). The Governor of the State of Georgia is limited to two four-year terms. As the federal government has devolved power back to the states since 1980 or so, governors have become more powerful, many even possessing name recognition on a national and international scale. Governors today are proactive policy entrepreneurs (Beyle, 1995), aided in no small part by the power of the lineiteP veto, whereby they can veto parts of legislation, but not the entire bill (43 governors possess this power). The president does not possess the line-item veto. In generations previous, the path to the U.S. presidency was through the Senate (John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson), but many recent presidents and presidential candidates previously served as governor (Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush), demonstrating their ability to oversee state agencies, manage budgets, handle crises, and win elections on a smaller scale, yet ful¿lling duties similar to that of the president. Not surprisingly, gubernatorial elections can cost tens of millions of dollars, looking very much like presidential elections and are marked by extensive television advertising, usage of professional campaign advisers, and negative campaign ads. The composition, functioning, and especially size of state legislatures vary tremendously across the states. Nebraska’s unicameral legislature has 49 members. The smallest bicameral legislature is Alaska’s with 60 members. The Georgia legislature has 236 members with 180 in the lower house and 56 in the Senate. Oddly enough, the largest state legislature is found in one of the smallest states—New Hampshire—which has a 424 seat body with 400 members serving in the lower house and has one representative per approximately 3,000 citizens. Contrast that with California, which has 80 members in its lower house, each representing roughly 423,000 people (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2010). Most states utilize four-year terPs oI oI¿ce for both the lower and upper houses of their legislatures, although 12 states utilize two-year terms. All 294 The Basics of American Government members of the General Assembly in Georgia serve two-year terms. Since 1990, many states have enacted term limits for state legislators; 15 states currently do so. Legislators in these states are limited from 6 to 12 years in of¿ce, depending on the state. State legislators in Georgia are not termlimited (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2010). There is also a tremendous amount of variation among the states with regard to full-time versus part-time legislatures, which is determined by both compensation and number of days in session. Many states pay legislators well over $60,000 per legislative session, with California providing the highest pay at over $95,000. Conversely, many states pay their legislators less than $20,000 per legislative session, including Georgia, where legislators are paid $17,342 for the forty-day session. Not surprisingly, those states with longer legislative sessions (several months) provide greater compensation and more staff to its members. (National Conference of State Legislators, 2010). All states except Texas meet in yearly sessions. Women are better represented in state legislatures than in the U.S. Congress, where women traditionally comprise roughly 10-12% of the 535 member body. In 2009, there were 1,788 women serving in state legislatures (24.4%), including a low of 10% in South Carolina and 11% in Oklahoma, to a high of 37% in New Hampshire and Colorado (in Georgia, women comprise 18.7% of the legislature). This 24.4% number has increased only ¿ve percent in the last 15 years (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2010). The ¿nancing of state legislator campaigns does not reÀect the campaign ¿nance model at the national level, where members of Congress are restricted by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which limit direct contributions to members of Congress by individuals and groups. Campaign contribution limits vary greatly across the states; seven states enact no limits on campaign contributions whatsoever. In Georgia, candidates for state legislature can receive $2,400 for the primary election and another $2,400 for the general election. Limits on campaign contributions (or lack thereof) can have implications, most notably the degree to which special interests have access to lawmakers and the extent to which they inÀuence public policy. Furthermore, states with low campaign contribution limits tend to have more competitive elections with challengers winning at a higher rate (Hamm and Hogan, 2008). Chapter Thirteen: State and Local Government 295 In terms of daily functioning and policymaking, state legislatures function very similarly to the U.S. Congress, working primarily in committees. Legislators will serve on several permanent or standing committees and perhaps other ad hoc or temporary committees as well. Traditionally, seniority rules with longer-serving members holding positions on the more prestigious committees. These long-held legislative traditions and folkways may erode as state legislators are subjected to term limits. The operation of the judicial s\stem (the courts) differs somewhat throughout the states. As mentioned previously, not all states refer to their highest court as the supreme court. In some states, judges are elected on partisan ballots, in others on non-partisan ballots. Other states appoint their judges to all levels of courts, while others still utilize the Missouri Plan, which involves a combination of appointments and elections. The primary difference is that judges who must run for election, especially those on partisan ballots, must concern themselves with political issues and variables like those governors and legislators face, most notably fundraising. Today, competition for judicial seats is ¿erce and can cost candidates hundreds of thousands of dollars per election cycle (Bonneau, 2007). What is common among all the states is the amount of judicial business or cases heard by state courts in comparison with the federal court system. State courts are busier, including the state courts of last resort, which hear many more cases than the U.S. Supreme Court. Local *overnments Authority Local governments (counties, townships, cities, school districts, etc.) are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and, therefore, their power and authority is not constitutionally-based. Rather, as the U.S. Supreme Court decision that came to be known as 'illon¶s Rule clari¿ed in 1868, local governments are creations of the state, subject to the authority and oversight of individual states, not the federal government. However, as counties, townships, cities, and other units of local government have expanded, they have become responsible for delivering more services to more people. As a result, they function almost as a third level or layer in the system of American federalism, even if they lack authority from the U.S. Constitution. It should be remembered that almost all units of government are local units of government. 296 The Basics of American Government Counties Counties are subdivisions of states delivering state services at the local level including, but not limited to record-keeping, licensing, transportation, economic development, law enforcement, water management, elections, planning and zoning, child protection, education, and parks and recreation. Counties exist in 48 states, with county-like entities called boroughs found in Alaska and parishes found in Louisiana. Texas boasts the most counties with 254. There are only three counties found in both Hawaii and Delaware. There are 159 counties in Georgia, the second-most of any state (National Association of Counties, 2010). Counties vary tremendously in size, from less than 100 square miles to over 10,000 square miles. Arlington County, 9irginia, the smallest county in the United States, is only 26 square miles. Conversely, San Bernadino County, California, the nation’s largest, is over 26,000 square miles. In terms of population, many rural counties throughout the United States have less than 5,000 residents while many urban counties have over a million people, including over ¿ve million in Cook County, Illinois and over nine million in Los Angeles County, California (National Association of Counties, 2010). This urban/rural distinction is important for counties because people living in rural areas rely more so on county government and the services it provides because those services are not provided or duplicated by other governments, most notably cities. Many people live in rural, unincorporated areas where government services are provided solely by the county. Historically, counties have been governed by an elected commission, which served as the legislative, policymaking entity for the county as well as the executive entity. In effect, each elected commissioner was responsible for overseeing a particular policy area. Relatively few counties still utilize this arrangement today due to the complex nature of modern county government and the potential for corruption that occurred before the era of professionalization spurred by the institution of the merit system at the county level in the early 20th century. Rather, the commission system of government has evolved over the years and today, counties are governed most often by the commissioneradministrator or commissionmanager system whereby the elected commission chooses a professional manager or administrator to oversee the day-to-day operations of the county. In this system, the commission ful¿lls its traditional legislative, policymaking function, but the manager or administrator is responsible for budget Chapter Thirteen: State and Local Government 297 oversight, personnel administration, strategic planning, and other daily government functions. The commissioner-administrator/commissionermanager system is the most commonly-used system of county governance today because of its relative ef¿ciency and professionalism (Svara, 1993). Yet other counties employ a commissione[ecutive whereby the county executive is a separately-elected of¿cial functioning similarly to a county manager or administrator. The advantage to the commission-executive system is true separation of powers (National Association of Counties, 2010). The least-utilized system of county governance is the sole commissioner model, found only in a few counties in Georgia and nowhere else. In these rural Georgia counties, the commissioner is a single person who functions as both the legislative and executive body for the county. As counties have grown, this system of government has become less appropriate and therefore rarely used. County commissioners and executives run on partisan ballots in most cases. Finally, over 30 cities and counties in several U.S. states have consolidated into one governmental entity. Consolidated governments deliver services as one government, rather than duplicating city and county services, theoretically increasing ef¿ciency of service delivery and saving money. New York City, Philadelphia, Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, and Jacksonville all operate as consolidated governments. Three consolidated governments are found in Georgia—Columbus-Muscogee, Athens-Clarke, and Augusta-Richmond (U.S. Census Bureau). Townships Just as counties are subdivisions of states, townships are subdivisions of counties, providing similar services to people living in mostly rural, unincorporated areas. Townships are found in 20 states primarily in the eastern United States and throughout the Midwest. Many states in the South and West do not utilize townships as a separate government entity (there are no townships in Georgia). Townships are traditionally governed by a Board of Trustees or Board of Supervisors serving as the legislative body and may utilize a town manager or administrator to oversee the daily operation of the township (National Association of Towns and Townships, 2010). Townships, like other units of government, function most effectively when their actions and delivery of services is well-coordinated with 298 The Basics of American Government other levels of government in the region, including counties and cities. Otherwise, their mere existence can be viewed by groups and citizens alike as duplicitous in nature, providing services that are already administered by counties, cities, or states (9isser, 2004). Cities There are over 19,000 municipal governments in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau), referred to here as cities. Cities vary tremendously in size and population, from literally a few dozen people to several million. Over 60% of all Americans live in cities (National League of Cities, 2010). Cities are µµincorporated’’ or established by receiving a charter from the state legislature. µµA city charter is the basic document that de¿nes the organization, powers, functions and essential procedures of the city government. It is comparable to the State Constitution and to the Constitution of the United States. The charter is, therefore, the most important single legal document of any city’’ (National League of Cities, 2010). Charters differ somewhat from state to state, depending on individual state constitutions, but traditionally, there are three different types of municipal charters: special or speci¿c charters, general or classi¿ed charters, and home rule charters. Cities are granted a charter depending on population, proposed government structure, and other variables (National League of Cities, 2010). Those cities with home rule can make minor changes to their charters without receiving approval from the state legislature, most notably adjusting the local income tax rate. All cities in Georgia possess home rule. Like counties, cities are governed by various systems, depending on tradition, era of incorporation, and state and regional political climate. The oldest form of city government is the ma\orcouncil form of government whereby the mayor functions as the chief executive and the city council functions as the legislative body. A distinction in the mayor-council form of government is the µµstrong mayor’’ versus µµweak mayor’’ classi¿cation. In those cities possessing µµstrong’’ mayors, the executive possesses greater authority with regard to budgetary and personnel decisions. Atlanta functions as a µµstrong’’ mayor system. Candidates for mayor and city council in mayoral systems tend to run on partisan ballots with candidates declaring a party af¿liation. Other cities, albeit very few, utilize Chapter Thirteen: State and Local Government 299 a commission s\stem that looks similar to the county commission system, where the commission functions as both the legislative and executive entity. The most common form of city government is the councilmanager or counciladministrator system where the elected city council functions as the legislative policymaking body but selects a professional manager or administrator to oversee the day-to-day operation of the city (similar to the county commission-manager or administrator system described above). Candidates for city council in council-manager systems tend to run on non-partisan ballots, which usually results in lower voter turnout. Finally, the town meeting form of government exists only in New England and is not pervasive throughout the region. In a municipality utilizing the town meeting form of government, the entire electorate is allowed to participate in an annual meeting, the primary purpose of which is to pass the budget for the upcoming ¿scal year. Policy administration is undertaken by select men, chosen by the electorate (DeSantis and Renner, 2002). The town meeting form of government is hampered by very low voter turnout. Arguments exist on both sides for partisan and nonpartisan elections. Advocates for partisan elections contend that party labels guide or aid voters in making candidate decisions and voter turnout is usually higher in partisan elections. Advocates for non-partisan elections contend that party labels are antiquated and do not aid professionals in providing city services to the public. The trend is towards non-partisan elections as the council-manager system of government becomes more pervasive, even in large cities that have traditionally possessed the mayoral form of government (Svara, 1999). With regard to term length and term limits of of¿ce-holders serving in city government, the overwhelming majority serve four-year terms of of¿ce and are not term-limited; less than 10% of cities limit the terms of of¿ce-holders (Svara, 2003, 14). It should also be noted that minority representation on city councils is higher for communities utilizing the council-manager form of government—21%— compared to the mayoral form of government—15% (Svara, 2003, 7). Other Local Governments Myriad other local governments exist in the United States and are too numerous to address in detail, although a few merit further investigation. Councils oI *overnments (COGs) are voluntary associations of communities in metropolitan areas and exist to address issues and concerns 300 The Basics of American Government that may affect several jurisdictions in a given region, such as land use, traf¿c and congestion, transportation, water use, and emergency management. COGs have little formal power but can be effective for strategic, long-term planning. The most successful COG is the one in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area (National League of Cities, 2010). School districts are an important unit of local government that make policy for schools in a given jurisdiction, such as a county, township, or city. School districts are governed by the school board, which functions as the legislative, policy-making body. The school board chooses a superintendent to oversee the daily operation of the district. School board members usually run on non-partisan ballots and serve four-year terms. School board politics can become contentious at times because boards oversee the curriculum for school children, making decisions about what children will learn, who will teach it to them, and which subjects should be emphasized (Land, 2002). There are over 13,000 school districts in the United States. The largest is the New York City district, which has nearly a million students (Selected statistics on enrollment, teachers, dropouts, and graduates in public school districts enrolling more than 15,000 students, by state: 1990, 2000, and 2006). Finally, about one-third of all local governments are special districts. Special districts are created to regulate and manage speci¿c services such as water and resources, ¿re prevention, emergency services, transportation, and even stadiums. These special districts encompass a de¿ned geographic area and have signi¿cant taxing and regulating authority, their primary purpose being raising funds. For example, if a city desires to build a new professional sports franchise, a special stadium district will be created and businesses and individuals owning property or buying goods in that geographic area will pay µµtax’’ to fund that endeavor. Case Stud\ State and Local *overnment )inancing Unlike the federal government, states cannot pass a yearly budget with a de¿cit and incur debt over many years or even generations. Forty-nine states have some type of balanced budget requirement in their state constitutions (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2010). During times of business and economic prosperity and boom, states often produce a surplus, allowing them to increase funding for existing programs and creating new programs, even refunding taxpayers some of their contributions in rare occassions. Conversely, during economic recessions, Chapter Thirteen: State and Local Government 301 depressions, and crises, states are often faced with a budgetary shortfall, resulting in deep, dramatic, and permanent cuts to state programs; the result is less money for such things as education, transportation, public health services, and law enforcement. This situation has been the case nationwide since the most recent economic recession began in 2007. While states have undergone dif¿cult economic times previously, the most recent crisis is unmatched since the Great Depression of the 1930s. In previous downswings in the economy, states began to devise non-traditional methods of raising revenue to fund government services. Beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, several states instituted ¿rst a state-sanctioned lottery and later state-sanctioned, legalized casino gambling as a means of generating much needed revenue. To help deal with current and future economic recessions, states may increasingly turn to legalized gambling to fund state programs. What follows is a case-study for the State of Georgia, which legalized the lottery in the early 1990s and may potentially turn to legalized casino gambling in the future. Legalized Casino Gambling In Georgia: A Potential Plan1 9oters in Georgia approved the lottery in a referendum in 1992 and the Georgia Lottery Corporation began selling tickets in 1993. The effort to adopt a lottery in the state was spearheaded by Governor Zell Miller, who based his 1990 campaign largely on the platform of creating a lottery to subsidize college tuition for the state’s college-bound students in addition to funding pre-kindergarten programs. This merit-based tuition assistance program eventually became the HOPE Scholarship program. Miller correctly assumed that the lottery would be more palatable to voters if the funds were tied to educational programs in the state. As Nelson and Mason (2004) chronicle, the lottery was also supported because Georgians had been gambling in illegal lotteries for decades. They were used to gambling; therefore, the adoption of a state-run lottery would not prove to be a signi¿cant divergence from existing social norms. In addition, citizens in south Georgia were frequent players of the Florida lottery: µµSeven of the top ten sales points for the Florida lottery were along the Georgia border’’ (Nelson and Mason 2004, 661). Furthermore, the state was amid a ¿nancial crisis in the early 1990s and the lottery was viewed as a feasible means of generating much-needed revenue (Nelson and Mason 2004). 1 This information is borrowed in large part from µµThe Feasibility of Legalized Casino Gambling in Georgia’’ by Ross C. Alexander. 302 The Basics of American Government Today, lottery funds are appropriated speci¿cally for certain educational programs, most notably the HOPE (Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally) Scholarship which provides tuition assistance for students meeting eligibility criteria in post-secondary institutions throughout the state. HOPE also provides funds for pre-kindergarten programs. According to the Georgia Lottery Corporation (http://www.galottery.com), the HOPE program has provided over $9.3 billion for educational programs since 1993, including $853 million in FY 2007. HOPE has sent over one million students to college and provided funding for 790,000 4-year-olds in pre-kindergarten programs since 1993 (http://www.galottery.com). The Georgia lottery is considered by experts to be one of the best run in the nation (McCrary and Condrey 2003). Unlike many states that do not tie lottery funds to speci¿c programs, educational or otherwise, Georgia mandates that lottery-generated revenues be allocated for speci¿c programs, such as the HOPE Scholarship. As Lauth and Robbins (2002) contend, many states have used lottery funds as a substitute for educational funds, not as an additional source. Georgia, however, has not succumbed to this scheme. Rather, lottery funds in the state continue to be allocated for the intended educational purposes. McCrary and Condrey (2003) further explain that the lottery in Georgia is among the best administered in the nation, enjoys a high degree of public support, and continues to fund the programs it was intended to fund upon its inception. However, Georgia is not alone in earmarking lottery funds for education. According to Evans and Zhang (2007), 37 states possess lotteries and 16 earmark funds for education. As a result, according to McCrary and Condrey (2003), µµ«the Georgia Lottery’s success has also spread the seeds of its potential demise’’ (709). The solvency for this program may erode in the future as other states adopt similar lotteries, resulting in competition for gambling dollars, and as more students participate in programs funded by the lottery. These scenarios could result in a shortfall in funding for these educational programs. In Georgia, the lottery receives a relatively high degree of public support in a socially and morally conservative region where gambling traditionally does not enjoy widespread public support for several reasons, most notably that its pro¿ts are used primarily to fund educational initiatives and that it is well-administered (von Herrmann 2002, 57). However, as von Herrmann (2002) further explains, support for gaming Chapter Thirteen: State and Local Government 303 initiatives (especially the lottery) can diminish as pro¿ts diminish. While it is dif¿cult to predict the breaking-point for the solvency of the Georgia lottery, policymakers should understand that publicly supported gambling and pro¿ts may Àuctuate or diminish in the future, and they should therefore plan accordingly by either recon¿guring funding strategies or perhaps expanding gambling operations. So, the challenge to the State of Georgia is to ensure the solvency of these lottery-supported educational programs at a time when more and more students are eligible to receive aid. However, state budgets remain tight and fewer and fewer federal dollars are available to supplement educational programs. While the Georgia lottery and the HOPE Scholarship program have been a model of success for several years, new funding strategies and sources may need to be found for it to remain ¿nancially solvent for future generations. One revenue generation vehicle that may ensure the solvency of the HOPE Scholarship program for the foreseeable future is legalized casino gambling. This study examines the feasibility of expanding gambling in Georgia to include legalized casino gambling to supplement the funding of the HOPE Scholarship program, to aid in the redevelopment efforts of selected cities throughout the state, and to provide much-needed budget relief for the State of Georgia. In Georgia, the lottery has been integral in funding many educational programs, such as the HOPE Scholarship. One could theorize that the success of the lottery in the state would result in voters being more supportive to the expansion of legalized gambling activities, especially legalized casino gambling. Nelson and Mason (2004) explain that one of the reasons Mississippi legalized casino gambling in the 1990s was to begin reaping gambling revenue before Louisiana and other states could adopt the measure. States have adopted gambling for many reasons, mostly economic, but in many cases gambling adoption is about competition—µµwe’d better adopt it before our neighbors do,’’ as Alexander and Paterline (2005) explain. This pressure to adopt gambling in Georgia existed prior to lottery adoption and even exists today surrounding the adoption of legalized casino gambling as other states in the region have already welcomed casinos (including Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, and North Carolina). In fact, the Georgia Assembly passed House Resolution 618, the House Study Committee on Gaming, to explore the feasibility of casino gambling in the state, due in 304 The Basics of American Government large part because other states had already adopted it or were considering adoption; Mississippi and North Carolina are mentioned speci¿cally. So, while many in the state would be resistant to legalized casino gambling for reasons explained previously, others may perhaps be more accommodating. The resolution advocates the exploration and consideration of legalized casino gambling in Georgia primarily for the following reasons: the need to augment the budget of the City of Atlanta; as a vehicle by which the shopping center dubbed µµUnderground Atlanta’’ could be re-developed; as a means of increasing tourism in Augusta, Columbus, Dalton, Macon, Savannah, and 9aldosta speci¿cally; and ¿nally, as a method of funding additional public safety initiatives in Atlanta. As proposed, the measure would require the cooperation of state and local of¿cials including mayors of the aforementioned cities as well as representatives from each city’s chamber of commerce. If gaming were to be adopted, which model should the state use? Riverboat gaming? Indian gaming? What? Furthermore, exactly how much money can be gained from legalizing casino gambling? Commercial casinos operate in eleven states (Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, and South Dakota). Nevada, New Jersey, and coastal Mississippi tend to be considered in a different µµclass’’ than the other gambling states because they operate large, land-based casino operations on a much larger scale than the others. The riverboat gambling operations of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, and Louisiana possess many similarities in operation, revenue generation, and number of casinos. Before wide-scale expansion in the coastal region of the state, Mississippi operated on the Illinois/Iowa riverboat gambling model (Nelson and Mason 2004). In all riverboat states, the state controls the number of licenses available for casino operations. Individual casinos almost operate as pseudo-monopolies in a given region or market to minimize competition and maximize pro¿ts. Illinois has 9 casinos, Indiana has 10, Iowa has 13, Louisiana has 18, and Missouri has eleven (http://www.americangaming.org). When riverboat gambling was adopted in the late 1980s and early 1990s throughout the Midwest, the intent was to spur economic redevelopment of riverfronts and downtowns and to generate much-needed revenue for host cities and states. As Alexander (2003) and Alexander and Paterline (2005) note, most host communities have reaped much-needed revenue from gambling. In many cases, gambling offers dollars that would not be Chapter Thirteen: State and Local Government 305 available if the casinos did not operate. Gambling dollars are generally allocated for speci¿c purposes, usually infrastructure improvement, community enrichment projects, education, and capital improvements in the host community in addition to tax dollars being allocated to the state. According to the American Gaming Association these states received the following casino tax revenues in 2009: Indiana ($878 million), Louisiana ($598 million), Illinois ($496 million), Missouri ($469 million), Michigan ($320 million), Iowa ($306 million), and Mississippi ($296 million). The intent of riverboat gaming throughout the Midwest was to spur redevelopment of host communities and to generate revenue for host cities and states. 28 states allow Indian gaming, including some of those that also allow casino gaming. However, the intent of casino gambling on Indian reservations is different. The purpose of gambling for Native Americans is to generate revenue for host tribes, not host cities or states. Any economic impact the community or state receives is secondary, as Alexander and Paterline (2005) explain. That is not to say, however, that some host communities do not receive signi¿cant ¿nancial contributions from host tribes, but that ¿nancial reward is not contractually based or state controlled. Therefore, if a state were considering adopting legalized casino gambling, the greatest ¿nancial rewards would be reaped not through Indian gaming, but through riverboat gaming. If Georgia were to adopt the riverboat model employed by states like Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, and Louisiana, the ¿nancial gain could be signi¿cant. Georgia, like the states mentioned above (except Mississippi), possesses a lottery. Therefore, it would be relatively safe to assume that casino gambling pro¿ts reaped in addition to established lottery revenues would be similar to these states if Georgia were to adopt the Midwestern riverboat model of casino gambling. Demographically and geographically, Georgia is similar to several of these states that possess one major metropolitan area, several smaller metropolitan areas, and many rural cities and regions. Illinois, for example, allows several casinos in the Chicago metropolitan area (Joliet, Aurora, Elgin) with others geographically dispersed throughout the state, primarily along the Illinois, Mississippi, and Ohio rivers. Some of the Illinois casinos generate revenue and economic development to a more signi¿cant extent than others, but the economic impact is profound for host municipalities. 306 The Basics of American Government In most cases, host cities are receiving tens of millions of dollars per year in tax revenue from casino gambling. Elgin, IL receives almost 25 million dollars and Joliet, IL nearly 35 million dollars. When surveyed, government of¿cials explain that without this revenue, many projects and services could not be provided in host cities (Alexander 2003; Alexander and Paterline 2005). It should also be noted that in some cases riverboat casinos do not necessarily require a river. Rather, arti¿cial bodies of water created exclusively for the purpose of supporting a casino meet the requirements of the initial enabling legislation authorizing gambling. Furthermore, the µµriverboat model’’ refers not necessarily to the existence of any body of water, but rather to the license and revenue allocation strategies of states that utilize this mode of gambling. Using the riverboat model, where would Georgia choose to allocate licenses? Which communities would bene¿t most from casino gambling? Some have been calling for a casino to be placed in Underground Atlanta as a means of restoring it to its previous economic vitality in addition to providing budget relief for the City of Atlanta. Surely, cities like Augusta, Savannah, Columbus, Albany, Dalton, Rome, Macon, and Atlanta (among others) would at least investigate the possibility of hosting a casino as a means of generating revenue and economic development as well as increasing tourism. As traditional industries and economic anchors transition, downsize, or leave, cities must turn to other revenue sources to fund programs and services, spur development, and purchase necessary equipment. Gambling can also serve as a boon for tourism, perhaps developing additional sectors of municipal economies that have been untapped or under-developed in the aforementioned cities and regions. There are a number of political factors to consider prior to gambling adoption in the state, but perhaps the state is at least ready to investigate seriously the expansion of legalized gambling to include casinos. As Lindaman (2007) indicates, however, morality politics remains a factor in the adoption of pro-gambling ordinances and policies, especially at the local level. If casino gambling generated anywhere near as much revenue as it does in other states that possess it, the educational programs supported by gambling in the state would be viable for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, many cities that desperately need supplemental revenue streams and redevelopment could bene¿t from casino gambling. Chapter Thirteen: State and Local Government 307 Another factor is market saturation. North Carolina possesses Indian gaming, but not casino gambling based on the µµriverboat model.’’ The nearest states that employ this type of gaming are Louisiana and Mississippi. However, as gambling diffuses (Nelson and Mason 2004) and proliferates throughout the nation as it becomes more economically viable and socially acceptable (Christiansen 1998), states throughout the South may begin to consider adopting the measure. The domino effect that occurred with lottery adoption 10 to 15 years ago may occur with casino gambling. As a result, it may be bene¿cial for the State of Georgia to consider casino gambling sooner rather than later—before the market becomes saturated, and it has to compete with neighboring states for gambling dollars. Even when adjacent states possess gambling, as in the cases of Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri, there seems to be enough gambling revenue to sustain all enterprises, but revenues are perhaps highest when a state possesses a monopoly of sorts on gambling activities in a given region, an economic tenet that holds true with many businesses, not just casino gambling. The state already possesses a model administrative infrastructure (McCrary and Condrey 2003) to oversee the allocation of gambling pro¿ts, which would make for a smoother transition from lottery-only gambling to casino gambling. Furthermore, in those states that utilize the riverboat model, the casinos are owned by private corporations that allocate tax revenues and money on a contractual basis. Therefore, the state would not have to be as involved as it is in the administration of the lottery. Of course, allowing casino gambling would probably have to be facilitated by a legislative proposal to the voters of the state, and would require a great deal of effort by pro-gaming policy entrepreneurs in the state legislature, the bureaucracy, and perhaps even the governor’s of¿ce, similar to efforts required when the lottery was adopted in the early 1990s. However, due to the success of the lottery in Georgia, its tradition of participation in illegal lotteries and other forms of gambling, and the necessity of securing additional revenue streams on a large-scale basis, perhaps the political conditions may exist for passage of casino gambling legislation and subsequent approval from the voters. In sum, the arguments in favor of adopting legalized casino gambling in Georgia include the sustainability of the HOPE Scholarship program as additional students become eligible for the program in the future, revenue generation for host municipalities in addition to potential 308 The Basics of American Government economic development and tourism expansion, budget relief for the State of Georgia and host municipalities, most notably the City of Atlanta, and the establishment of a reliable revenue stream for the state and host cities at a time when the market is not yet saturated with casino gambling alternatives in the region. A Civic (ngagement Challenge *et Involved in Local *overnment One of the basic themes of this chapter has been that it is easier for citizens to get involved in µµlower’’ levels of government, which is true for students as well. Students often have dif¿culty applying theories, themes, and lessons of government to their daily lives. One way in which they can better understand how government affects them is to become more involved. The civic engagement challenge for this chapter is for students to get involved with a local campaign in one of two ways: either by volunteering for a candidate for city council, county commission, school board, or another local of¿ce, or by running themselves. While the ¿rst option may be less dif¿cult, the second option is certainly realistic. In many college towns, students have gained election to the city council or county commission. Students underestimate their political power. In a small or mid-sized college community, students comprise an overwhelming portion of the electorate. In most states, including Georgia, students can register to vote in the cities where they go to school. As a result, a candidate for of¿ce who is able to harness the political power of the campus and motivate students to vote would have a very good chance of winning an election. City council elections tend to have low voter turnout, and a few dozen votes could very well determine the outcome. A successful studentcandidate would have to make sure he or she ¿led for the election on time, established his or her residency in the community, and drummed up support on campus. So, get going! Discussion Questions 1. How do state constitutions differ from the U.S. Constitution? Which format is better? Why? 2. How does the composition and functioning of state legislatures differ across the states? In terms of size, term length, and structure, which model is best? Why? Chapter Thirteen: State and Local Government 309 3. Compare and contrast the various forms of local government structure. Which offers the best service delivery to citizens? Why? 4. Should cash-strapped states turn to alternative forms of revenue generation such as legalized casino gambling? Why or why not? References Alexander, R. C. (2008). The feasibility of legalized casino gambling in Georgia. Proceedings of the Georgia Political Science Association. (2007 ed.). Alexander, R. C., & Paterline, B. A. (2005). Boom or bust: Casino gaming and host municipalities. International Social Science Review 80(1,2), 20-28. Alexander, R. C. (2003). The effects of casino gambling on selected midwestern municipalities: Gauging the attitudes of local government of¿cials, local business of¿cials, and civic leaders. Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse. American Gaming Association. (2003). American Gaming Association. Retrieved from http://www.americangaming.org/. Beyle, T. (1995). Enhancing executive leadership in the states. State and Local Government Review, 27(1), 18-35. Beyle, T. (1968). The governor’s formal powers: A view from the governor’s chair. Public Administration Review, 540-545. Bonneau, C. W. (2007). The effects of campaign spending in state Supreme Court elections. Political Research Quarterly, 60(3), 489-499. Bureau of the Census. (2002). Census of government, government organization. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/gc021x1.pdf. Christiansen, E. M. (1998). Gambling and the American economy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 556, 36-52. 310 The Basics of American Government DeSantis, 9. S., & Renner, T. (2002). City government structures: An attempt at clari¿cation. State and Local Government Review, 34(2), 95-104. Evans, W. N., & Zhang, P. (2007). The impact of earmarked lottery revenue on state educational expenditures. Education Finance and Policy, 2(1), 40-73. Georgia Lottery Corporation. (2011). Georgia Lottery. Retrieved from http://www.galottery.com/. Hajnal, Z. L. & Lewis, P. G. (2003). Municipal institutions and voter turnout in local elections. Urban Affairs Review, 35(3), 645-668. Hamm, K. E. & Hogan, R. E. (2008). Campaign ¿nance laws and candidacy decisions in state legislative elections. Political Research Quarterly, 61(3), 458-467. Hammons, C. W. (1999). Was James Madison wrong? Rethinking the American preference for short, framework-oriented constitutions. American Political Science Review, 93(4), 837-849. Kincaid, J. (1988). State constitutions in the federal system. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 496, 12-22. Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 229-278. Lauth, T. P. & Robbins, M. D. (2002). The Georgia lottery and state appropriations for education: Substitution or additional funding? Public Budgeting and Finance, 22(3), 89-100. Lindaman, K. L. (2007). Place your bet on politics: Local governments roll the dice. Politics and Policy, 35(2), 274-297. McCrary, J. & Condrey, S. E. (2003). The Georgia lottery: Assessing its administrative, economic, and political effects. Review of Policy Research, 20(4), 691-711. Chapter Three Federalism Charles H. “Trey” Wilson III Learning Objectives After covering the topic of federalism, students should understand: 1. What federalism is and how the U.S. Constitution allocates powers to both the national and state governments to create a federalist system in the United States. 2. The evolution of American federalism from inception to its modern manifestations. The concepts of µµdual federalism,¶¶ µµcooperative federalism,¶¶ µµ1ew )ederalism,¶¶ and µµ1ew Age )ederalism.¶¶ 3. The future of federalism in light of recent Supreme Court decisions affecting the distribution of power between the national and state governments. Abstract Federalism in the United States refers to a governmental system outlined in the Constitution in which power is distributed between the national government and the state governments. The U.S. Constitution allocates power to the national government chieÀy through the enumerated powers the implied powers, the power to tax, and the Supremacy Clause, and to the state governments through the ‘‘Reserved Powers Clause.’’ The nuances of federalism have evolved and changed in the U.S. as views altered over time about how power should be shared between the federal government and state governments. Political scientists routinely use labels such as ‘‘dual federalism,’’ ‘‘cooperative federalism,’’ ‘‘New Federalism,’’ and ‘‘New Age Federalism’’ to describe the various incarnations of federalism. The future of federalism may be dynamic depending upon how the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to adMudicate cases in which the distribution of power in government is at issue. Introduction Federalism may be de¿ned as a political system in which power is divided between a central government and multiple constituent, provincial, or state governments. While the U.S. Constitution never expressly states anything liNe µµthe United States will have a federalist system,¶¶ various provisions in the document confer or deny powers to the national government 28 The Basics of American Government while others reserve or withhold powers for the ¿fty state governments. In this way, a federalist system was created for America. This system has evolved and changed over time and continues to do so today, as a kind of tension has grown to exist between the central and the state governments over which will exercise power. Understanding this system and its nuances is requisite to fully grasping American government, since federalism is at the heart of how government is organized in the United States. :K\ Federalism" For the framers, federalism was a kind of middle ground between two other systems of government that had proven to be unsatisfactory for Americans. In one such system (called a unitar\ system by political scientists), a centralized, national government retained virtually all governmental power, as in the case of the British monarchy. Many colonists believed they had been subjected to tyrannical oppression at the hands of the king, and so were wary of conferring too much power on what they feared would become a distant and unfamiliar national government. However, the opposite extreme of government was equally undesirable. While the confederal system created by the Articles of Confederation did create a national government, the Articles gave relatively little power to that central government and instead reserved most governing power for the several states. While this provided for a great deal of local autonomy, the result was a puny national government. Indeed, this national government was too weak and ill-equipped to respond to even internal crises such as Shays’ Rebellion (an uprising of Massachusetts farmers angered over an ailing economy), let alone external threats from powerful neighbors. A federal system empowered to some extent both the state and national governments, thereby combining the bene¿ts of both. &reating a Federalist 6\stem Empowering a National Government Four items contained in the U.S. Constitution serve to confer the lion’s share of power on the national government: the µµenumerated powers,’’ the µµimplied powers,’’ the µµSupremacy Clause,’’ and the power to tax. To enumerate something simply means to count it off, one by one, as in a list. Hence, the enumerated powers are essentially contained in list form in the U.S. Constitution, speci¿cally in Article I, Section . This text gives Chapter Three: Federalism 29 µµCongress,’’ which should be taken to mean the national government, the power to do many speci¿c things, including coining money, establishing post of¿ces, and maintaining a navy, among others. While the enumerated powers specify many things that the federal government can do, the framers knew that they could never create an exhaustive list of powers for the Congress. After all, times change, and much would doubtlessly occur in the future that they could not even anticipate, let alone write about. Consequently, the framers included language in Article I, Section 8 which has come to be known as the Elastic Clause, so-called because it lets the federal government expand and stretch its power under certain circumstances. The Elastic Clause provides that Congress shall have the power to make all laws which are µµnecessary and proper’’ for executing any of its enumerated powers (The Elastic Clause is sometimes referred to as the µµ1ecessary and 3roper Clause’’ because of this language). The result is that, providing Congress can demonstrate that a law it likes is both necessary and proper, it may be able to do something that might, at ¿rst glance, seem beyond the scope of its enumerated powers. 2f course, determining exactly how µµnecessary’’ and µµproper’’ should be de¿ned in any given circumstance is often a matter of ¿erce debate in government, and anyone who does not like the law in question will certainly argue that it is unnecessary and improper. Political scientists refer to powers the national government derives from the Elastic Clause and the enumerated powers as implied powers since, while they are not overtly stated, such powers may be fairly construed to exist. Article 9I of the U.S. Constitution contains what is referred to as the 6upremac\ Clause. Occasionally, both the federal government and one or more state governments might each claim some power to do something— for example, the power to regulate the issuance of monopolies on steamboat ferry transportation across the Hudson Bay (see the Supreme Court case of Gibbons v. Ogden later in the chapter). The Supremacy Clause states that in these conÀicts, the federal government shall be presumed to win out over the state government(s). Chief Justice John Marshall put it more eloquently in the judicial opinion he wrote in 1819 for the U.S. Supreme Court case of McCulloch v. Maryland. Marshall declared, µµthe Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme…they control the constitution and laws of the respective States, and cannot be controlled by them.’’ The framers included this provision because they had 30 The Basics of American Government seen ¿rst-hand under the Articles of Confederation how the nation could suffer under an impotent national government. Finally, the national government derives much of its power from the ability to tax. To avoid the myriad problems of inadequate revenue that surfaced under the Articles of Confederation, the framers empowered the federal government with the ability to levy charges against such things as activities, products, and, with the Sixteenth Amendment, income. The power to tax can be a powerful tool to shape public policy. Consider, for example, consumption or µµsin’’ taxes imposed by government on everything from alcohol to tobacco products to µµgas guzzling’’ vehicles. Proponents of such taxes hope tacking on additional expenses to the cost of taxed products will discourage people from acquiring them and, eventually, make the products so unattractive to consumers that they disappear from the market. Empowering State Governments Like the federal government, state governments derive power from the U.S. Constitution. Regarding state power, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black once wrote that federalism meant, µµa proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate State governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways’’ (Younger v. Harris, 44). Indeed, having lived for a decade with the Articles of Confederation under which states maintained virtually all governmental power, it would have gone without saying for many of the framers that states would retain power under the U.S. Constitution. Consequently, relatively little is stated outright regarding state power in the Constitution’s articles. However, Anti-Federalist concerns over the national government usurping too much power eventually led to the inclusion of the Tenth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. It states, µµThe 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.’’ Political scientists refer to this bit of text as the Reserved Powers Clause and these powers as µµreserved powers’’ or, alternatively, µµpolice powers.’’ While the latter term might conjure up images of men and women in blue brandishing pistols and handcuffs, think of it more broadly. Besides being a noun, Chapter Three: Federalism 31 µµpolice’’ can also be a verb. To µµpolice’’ something essentially means to keep something maintained in good order. In the context of federalism, a state’s µµpolice powers’’ let it exclusively regulate within its borders things like law and order, health, safety, and morality as it sees ¿t and prohibits the federal government from interfering with state interests in these areas. This explains why some states may permit some practices (such as samesex marriage or capital punishment), while others do not. Each state is exercising its reserved powers autonomously. Powers Shared Between (and Denied to) the Federal and State Governments We have seen how the U.S. Constitution confers power onto the national government and onto state governments to create America’s federalist system. However, to completely grasp how federalism functions, we must also understand the concepts of concurrent powers (or shared powers) and prohibited powers (or denied powers). Concurrent powers are powers that are held by both the federal and the state governments. For example, both the federal government and the several state governments have the power to establish a court system. This is why the United States has a federal Supreme Court, just as each state has its own state supreme court of last resort for cases moving through the state judicial system. Another example of a shared power would be the power to tax. If you have not already begun doing so, every year around mid-April, you will submit your Federal Income Tax Return, probably the (in)famous I.R.S. Form 1040. In most states, such as Georgia, you will also submit an income tax return to the state you live in around this time as well. Some states, such as Florida, Nevada, and New Hampshire, do not have a state income tax. As the name implies, concurrent powers may be exercised by the states and the national government simultaneously. However, note that states may exercise these shared powers only up to the point that they do not violate or conÀict with national law. For example, while the state of Georgia does have the power to tax, the state could not begin taxing goods slated to be exported to other countries through its shipping ports. This is because the U.S. Constitution contains a clause that prohibits export taxes from being used (note that Georgia and other states can tax imported goods— providing they obtain approval from Congress to do so). The prohibition on export taxes is a good example of a µµprohibited power.’’ As the name implies, a prohibited power is one that is denied to either the federal government, the state governments, or, at times, denied 32 The Basics of American Government to both governments. For example, the Constitution contains a clause that reads, µµNo Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States.’’ Hence, as nifty as they might sound, there will never be a µµJohn Jones, 'uke of 'ahlonega’’ or µµSusan Smith, 'uchess of 'awsonville’’—at least not of¿cially, anyway. Another example of a prohibited power relates to what are called ex post facto laws. µµEx post facto’’ is Latin for µµafter the fact.’’ An ex post facto law is one that would criminalize some action for the purpose of prosecuting it after someone had already performed the action at a time when it was legal to do so. 9engeful politicians in neither the federal government nor any state government can enact such laws. Examples of powers prohibited to only state governments would include the power to make treaties or to coin money. Examples of powers prohibited to only the federal government could include things like establishing a drinking age or setting the age of consent for marriage, since these would be considered state police powers protected from federal government intrusion thanks to the Tenth Amendment. ‘‘Horizontal Federalism’’ and Relations between the States The foregoing material describes how the U.S. Constitution allocates (or does not allocate) powers to the national and state governments. Some political scientists qualify this as vertical federalism since it describes a dynamic occurring between government on two different levels, federal and state. Just as important, however, is how power is shared between the several different governments that all inhabit the state level. To many people, part of what makes the United States a remarkable country is the heterogeneity of its ¿fty states. The size, population, resources, natural environment, and political culture of no two states are exactly alike. What is it that keeps big California with its population of over 35 million people and vast resources from trying to throw its weight around against other, smaller states? In fact, several provisions of the Constitution serve to put all the states on one level (i.e., horizontal) playing ¿eld. Four of the most signi¿cant of these provisions of horizontal federalism are the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Interstate Rendition (a.k.a. Extradition) Clause, which are all contained in Article I9, and interstate compacts. The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires each state to respect µµthe public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.’’ Chapter Three: Federalism 33 Practically speaking, this statement means that contracts and judicial orders arising out of one state will continue to be binding in other states, mostly because it better facilitates national commerce. It is the reason a couple can drive cross-country all night, get married at a 24-hour wedding chapel in Las 9egas, and then return home, still married, even though their ceremony occurred several states away. Assuming the marriage contract was valid in Nevada, the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that other states recognize it as well. Incidentally, this kind of situation might one day pose an interesting problem: What if Nevada decides to legalize same-sex marriage, just as many other states have amended their state constitutions to prohibit it? Would a state whose constitution speci¿es that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman be obligated to recognize a same-sex marriage performed for two of its residents in Nevada in light of the Full Faith and Credit Clause? When questions like this come up, the U.S. Supreme Court may be asked to settle the matter. Indeed, Article III of the Constitution states that when a dispute between two states arises, the Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction to hear the case, one of the few instances when the Court does not act in an appellate capacity. Like the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause also serves to equalize power distribution between states. This clause guarantees that citizens of one state shall be deemed to possess the same fundamental rights as citizens of all other states. It is occasionally referred to as the µµComity Clause’’ because it prevents any state from discriminating against visiting citizens from another state in certain respects, which would tend to preserve harmony as people travel between states (µµcomity’’ means a friendly social atmosphere, which probably would better come about if everyone thought they were on equal footing with everyone else). Note that this clause applies only to basic constitutional rights such as those discussed in Chapter 11. So, for example, a state might legally charge residents one price to enter a state museum but charge nonstate-residents a higher price since museum-going is not a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution. Interstate Rendition (or perhaps more commonly, if not entirely correctly, referred to as µµextradition’’) occurs when a fugitive apprehended in one state is handed over to the authorities of another state for prosecution for crimes committed in that latter state. To preserve interstate comity, when rendition occurs, it typically does so without much incident. 34 The Basics of American Government However, occasions have arisen when one state may not want to turn over a fugitive to another state. Perhaps the most celebrated instance of this in recent years came in the legal case of Puerto Rico v. Branstad. In this case, an Iowa governor declined to extradite a man charged with homicide in Puerto Rico who had Àed to Iowa while released on bail. The man (who was white) stood accused of killing a Hispanic woman, and the governor did not believe he could get a fair trial owing to racial circumstances. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that federal courts have the power to force states to hand over fugitives thanks to the Extradition Clause in Article I9, Section 2, Clause 2. (See Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 [1987]). Interstate compacts are discussed in Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution and also serve to harmonize relationships between states. These compacts are legally binding agreements between two or more states to do something that must be approved by Congress before taking effect. They can be on any subject, but often revolve around natural resources (such as lakes and rivers) that touch or Àow through multiple states. Signatories to these compacts agree to share power and resources to maintain the common natural resource and prevent any one state from polluting or overusing the resource. Ultimately, these several provisions of the U.S. Constitution do much to help the ¿fty states get along. Except for one unfortunate period from 181 to 1865, horizontal federalism has worked for over two hundred years. This track record should argue powerfully that horizontal federalism is just as important as federalism in the vertical sense when it comes to American government. The Evolution of Federalism Early Years: The ‘‘Supremacy’’ Period Our present understanding of federalism and the manner in which power is allocated between the state governments and the national government did not spring into being overnight. Rather, this understanding has changed over the last two hundred-plus years. This process began with the writing of the U.S. Constitution. The framers meant for that text to communicate much about how power would be distributed; hence, we have the enumerated powers, the implied powers, the reserved powers, etc., discussed earlier. At the same time, the framers meant for their words Chapter Three: Federalism 35 to be interpreted by future generations. They understood that times would change and that phrases such as µµnecessary and proper’’ and words like µµsupremacy’’ would have to be quali¿ed in the future to be meaningful in light of those changes. The job of qualifying this constitutional language typically falls to the United States Supreme Court. How that language has been quali¿ed over time by the Court in response to changing times is the evolutionary process of federalism. This evolution of federalism really commenced in the early 1800s when Chief Justice John Marshall, a very talented jurist, headed the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1819, the Marshall Court heard a case called McCulloch v. Maryland, which is often referred to as µµthe bank case’’ for reasons soon to become apparent. In a simpli¿ed version, things began when Congress chartered a national bank and located a branch of¿ce of this bank in Baltimore. Maryland’s state legislature, which doubtlessly disliked the idea of added competition for state-owned banks within its borders, responded by levying a steep tax on all banks operating in the state that had not been chartered by Maryland. When James McCulloch, the head of the Baltimore branch of the federal bank, received the tax notice, he refused to pay. The state of Maryland sued McCulloch in state court and, unsurprisingly perhaps, won. McCulloch appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. There were two central issues in the case that the Supreme Court was asked to decide, and both related to federalism. The ¿rst was, µµ'id Congress have the authority to charter a bank?’’ Maryland pointed out that the U.S. Constitution never mentioned such a power; indeed, the word µµbank’’ never even appeared in the document. However, the Supreme Court sided with the federal government’s argument on this issue. That argument asserted that it was reasonable to imply that Congress should have the power to charter a bank thanks to the Elastic Clause. After all, the Constitution did expressly give Congress the power to issue currency, collect taxes, and to borrow money in the enumerated powers. A bank could assist with doing these things—indeed, the U.S. government claimed it was necessary to have a bank to do them ef¿ciently. Also, a national bank was not some arcane, complicated contraption that Congress conjured up out of nowhere. Many countries had national banks of one form or another even back then. Hence, one could say that having a national bank was proper as well as necessary for a nation like the United States to thrive. 36 The Basics of American Government The Supreme Court decided that the federal government had made its case that the national bank was µµnecessary and proper’’ to the exercise of Congress’s enumerated powers involving revenue and currency. And, according to the Elastic Clause, if something Congress wants to do can be deemed µµnecessary and proper,’’ then that something is a constitutionally permissible exercise of federal government power. The second question presented for resolution in McCulloch v. Maryland related to taxation. Maryland argued that, assuming the national bank could exist, nothing should stop the state from taxing it. After all, the bank was on Maryland soil and so was potentially a burden to the state, albeit a minor one. The tax would compensate the state for its trouble. The Supreme Court did not buy it. Chief Justice Marshall, who wrote the majority opinion in the case, invoked the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and held that a state law taxing the bank must be trumped by a federal law permitting the bank to operate freely. McCulloch v. Maryland is an important case in the evolution of federalism because of how the Supreme Court interpreted the Elastic Clause and the Supremacy Clause. In both instances, the Court read the U.S. Constitution in such a way that opened the door for the expansion of the federal government’s power. Consider that the Court could have quali¿ed µµnecessary and proper’’ in such a way that would have made it very dif¿cult for the federal government to characterize anything as either necessary and/or proper. It did not. Rather, the Court put the entire country on notice that satisfying the parameters of the Elastic Clause was something doable. Likewise, the Court could have adopted a more limited de¿nition of µµsupremacy.’’ Again, it chose not to, sending in the process a clear signal to states that their laws would fare poorly in competition with federal statutes (See McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 [1819]). Another landmark case affecting federalism came before the Marshall Court only a few years after McCulloch. In 1824, the Court heard Gibbons v. Ogden, which has come to be known as the µµsteamboat case’’—again for reasons that will soon become apparent. Though the case eventually turned out to be somewhat complicated on several levels, the main issues in dispute were actually fairly simple. Aaron Ogden, who had ties to Robert Fulton, the inventor of the steamboat, had secured exclusive rights from the New York State legislature to operate a steamboat passenger ferry service on the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey. About Chapter Three: Federalism 37 the same time, Thomas Gibbons, a former business partner of Ogden’s, also secured exclusive rights to do roughly the same thing—but his license came from Congress, not a state legislature. Ogden sued to protect his monopoly. Before the Court, the case turned chieÀy on how the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution would be interpreted. This clause states that Congress, not the states, shall have the power µµTo regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.’’ No one much disputed that the two steamboat services were operating µµamong’’ states. However, the parties to the lawsuit differed over how the word µµcommerce’’ in the clause should be de¿ned. Ogden argued that commerce should amount to what people probably typically think of when they think of commerce—namely, exchanging money for goods. Since Ogden’s steamboat ferry provided a service, not goods, in exchange for money, he argued that what he did fell outside of the de¿nition of commerce. And, if what he did was not commerce, then the Interstate Commerce Clause could not apply to give Congress the power to issue anything. The Supreme Court demurred. Justice Marshall wrote that commerce should be broadly de¿ned to include µµintercourse, all its branches.’’ So, you would be engaging in commerce if you swapped money for goods, money for services, services for goods, goods for goods, etc. Hence, the Congressional license granted to Gibbons was the valid one since the national government and not the state of New York was constitutionally empowered to regulate commercial activities that involved more than one state, which the steamboat ferry service did. This broad interpretation of what constituted commerce would let Congress use the Interstate Commerce Clause as a rationale to regulate many things over the next two centuries, much to the chagrin of many states. While during this time period the Court would occasionally reformulate its ruling on the matter (sometimes contracting when the clause could apply only to re-expand it at a later time), the clause has still always remained a powerful resource for the federal government (see Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 [1824]). The ¿nal truly signi¿cant Supreme Court case that quali¿ed federalism during its age of supremacy was that of John Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, which was decided in 1833. Barron owned part of a lucrative wharf in the Baltimore harbor. He sued Baltimore for 38 The Basics of American Government damages, claiming that when the city had diverted the Àow of several streams to facilitate road work, the diversion caused sand and silt to collect around his wharf. Barron asserted that this hurt his business by making the water around the wharf too shallow to accommodate many big vessels that sought to dock and unload their cargos there. Barron won the suit in the lower court, but Baltimore appealed the ruling, eventually all the way up to the Supreme Court. The key issue in the case was whether or not state government takings of private property for public use (known in the law as µµeminent domain,’’ which, essentially, this was) required just compensation to individuals deprived of property. The Court held that while the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution did require this, the requirement only applied to the federal government and not the several state governments. Importantly, the Court essentially ruled that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights did not restrict the state governments but, rather, applied only to the federal government. This quali¿er was important in the development of federalism because it furthered a divide between federal and state governments (see Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 [1833]). The Era of ‘‘Dual Federalism’’ While the Supreme Court’s rulings in both McCulloch and Gibbons interpreted constitutional language in such a way that favored the federal government over the states, this would not always be the outcome. Over the next several decades following these decisions, the Court would be asked many times to decide just how far federal government power extended. The justices occasionally ruled against the federal government, thereby ¿rming up the power of state governments. Perhaps the most (in)famous instance of this occurred in the 1857 case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. In this dispute, an African American slave sued for his freedom after moving with his owners from the slave-holding South to a free state in the North, believing his residence on free soil had ended his slave status. In an extremely controversial opinion, the Court held that Scott and other slaves should be µµregarded as beings of an inferior order’’ not considered citizens of the United States, and so prohibited from ¿ling suit in federal court. From a federalism standpoint, the case is signi¿cant because the Court declared that Congress lacked the power to ban slavery in the western territories such as Kansas and Nebraska, something it had Chapter Three: Federalism 39 attempted to do with the Missouri Compromise of 1820. States, then, and their citizens, would determine the fate of the µµpeculiar institution’’ (as slavery was sometimes euphemistically called) within their borders, not the federal government (see Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 [1856]). Supreme Court rulings like that in Dred Scott that conferred power on state governments or rulings like those in McCulloch and Gibbons that conferred power on the national government collectively created what political scientists refer to as dual federalism. Under this scheme, the federal government and the state governments are viewed as each having their own µµsphere of inÀuence’’ in which each exercises power and into which the other may not encroach. The national government derives its power to control everything in its sphere largely from the expressed and implied powers of the U.S. Constitution. The state governments control their spheres and keep the federal government out of their business largely thanks to the Reserved Powers Clause in the Tenth Amendment. A time-honored model used by American government students to visualize the arrangement of dual federalism is a two-layer-cake. Think of the federal government as being the top layer and the state governments as being the bottom layer. Each otherwise identical layer of cake is analogous to a sphere of inÀuence and each is separated from the other by a thick layer of gooey icing, an insulating confection whipped together by the U.S. Constitution. The basic belief in dual federalism controlled American constitutional jurisprudence until the 1930s. Despite the notion of duality, the federal government’s overall power as compared to the states arguably, if gradually, increased during this interval. Perhaps the biggest factor for this increase was the Civil War. Ironically, this conÀict that started out to increase the power of state governments ended up augmenting the national government’s power in many ways. For example, the federal income tax came into being. This taxation gave the national government a revenue source it had not possessed before. The tax would eventually become a permanent ¿xture in American life with the rati¿cation of the Sixteenth Amendment and provide the federal government with vast capital resources (see U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2010). Also out of the Civil War came the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These so-called µµCivil War Amendments’’ all dealt with race and sought to uplift free-blacks in 40 The Basics of American Government whatever state they lived. However, judicial rulings like Plessy v. Ferguson (discussed in detail in Chapter 11) often thwarted this aim by returning power to states to make their own civil rights laws. Some years after the war, another kind of ¿ght would increase the federal government’s power. Congress enacted the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 to combat the growth of corporate monopolies in America. This act permitted the federal government, not the states, to regulate many aspects of business and commerce in the name of protecting consumers from anti-competitive practices. While the Civil War Amendments and the Sherman Act empowered the federal government, not everything during the era of dual federalism was a loss for state governments. Supreme Court rulings in some cases, like Plessy, empowered states. For example, states enjoyed relative autonomy to legislate in the areas of voting and civil rights within their own separate spheres. The Era of ‘‘Cooperative Federalism’’ Dual federalism became old news in 1933 with the advent of the New Deal. µµNew Deal’’ was the name given to a collection of radical government programs championed by President Franklin Roosevelt to get the United States out of the economic quagmire that was the µµGreat Depression.’’ Almost any problem one could think of (unemployment, crime, etc.) loomed large in America during this age. About the only entity anyone believed was sizable enough to even stand a chance at combating these ills was the federal government. Congress enacted law after law, creating new federal agencies geared toward promoting some aspect of economic recovery. These agencies had names like the Civilian Conservation Corps or the Tennessee 9alley Authority, but were more often known by their initials. Collectively, history knows the CCC, the T9A, and others somewhat jokingly as the µµAlphabet Soup Agencies.’’ The laws that created them demanded cooperation from multiple levels of government. The laws associated with the New Deal demanded that multiple levels of government (federal, state, and, now for the ¿rst time, often municipal governments) work together on implementation. For example, the federal government might do something like provide funds to a state that would then hire some of its unemployed citizens to, in turn, complete a roadwork Chapter Three: Federalism 41 project for a city. Because of the governmental interconnectedness inherent in this arrangement, political scientists refer to this as cooperative federalism. Recall that under dual federalism, the different levels of government operated autonomously within their separate spheres of inÀuence—little cooperation there, to be sure. With the advent of this new kind of federalism, the lines between governmental spheres blurred and became more Àuid. Of course, this changing federalism requires a change of metaphor as well since a slice of layer cake will always reveal two distinct parts separated from each other by frosting. Think of cooperative federalism as being illustrated by a piece of marble cake instead. A slice of that confection— when viewed from the side—reveals a swirling, intermixing of light and dark cake. Just as it is dif¿cult to discern precisely where one cake starts and the other stops in a marble cake, cooperative federalism accepts that the boundaries of power for federal, state, and local governments are no longer ¿xed and distinct. You will probably have surmised that the shift from dual federalism to cooperative federalism was a radical one. Many people feared this unprecedented growth of the federal bureaucracy and some ¿led legal challenges to New Deal legislation that made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Initially, the Court overturned much of the legislation. The justices often agreed with challengers that aspects of the New Deal conferred too much power on the national government. President Roosevelt fumed. In private, he derisively referred to the justices as the µµnine old men.’’ Publically, he proposed a plan that would essentially have given him and a sympathetic Congress the power to expand the Supreme Court from nine to ¿fteen justices. Of course, the additional jurists he would install would be New Deal supporters. Roosevelt’s courtpacNing plan, as it came to be known, proved to be largely unpopular with the American people, who resented his effort to tamper with the judiciary. However, merely proffering the plan may have had the effect FDR desired. Perhaps a bit spooked by the court-packing threat, the high court began ruling in favor of much New Deal legislation starting around 1935. These rulings cleared the way for Congress to increase its sway over states (see Leuchtenburg, 1969). Since the New Deal era, the primary tool employed by the federal government to induce states and municipalities to do their share of the 42 The Basics of American Government cooperating in cooperative federalism was something called a categorical grant. A grant is simply an assignment of funds—usually a lot of funds when it is a federal program in question. The federal government had provided a few grant programs to states over the years prior to the Great Depression (such as the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862, which gave states federal land to establish public colleges), but these were nothing compared to New Deal grant programs in either size or scope. The term µµcategorical’’ is meant to describe how Congress doles out federal dollars to states to accomplish distinct things in some particular area—as opposed to giving states money to spend however they might wish. Using categorical grants, Congress can, for all intents and purposes, regulate just about anything. Indeed, even though the Tenth Amendment reserves some powers to states, Congress can often tempt states with grants to induce them to police something in a way desired by the federal government. For example, there was a period of time during the 1970s where many oil-rich Arab countries instituted an oil embargo against the United States, mostly to punish Americans for historical support of Israel. Gasoline prices spiked, hours-long lines at pumps were common, and many places ran out of gas entirely as re¿nery oil supplies dwindled. The federal government wanted the nation to drive slower to conserve fuel. However, setting speed limits is a classic police power and lowering them is something only individual states could do thanks to the Tenth Amendment. Still, the federal government would get its way. It offered states large grants of highway improvement money if they would only lower their interstate speed limits to 55 mph. Hungry for those highway funds, virtually all did so in a relatively short time. Hence, the national government accomplished its goal almost just as if it had regulated things directly (see Weiner, 1992). Beginning in the 1960s, the tone of cooperation between the states and the federal government began to change. Prior to that decade, most states had been generally content to work with the federal government under the terms of categorical grants, believing as they did that the two levels of government shared common aims. However, as the federal government advanced programs to combat poverty and discrimination under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, many states—particularly in the South—abandoned this view. This occurred largely because the national government found ways to bypass state legislatures en route to achieving Chapter Three: Federalism 43 national objectives. Local governments and even community organizations received much federal funding, since Congress believed they would be more likely than several staunchly conservative states to spend money in ways bene¿tting African Americans and other marginalized groups. From many states’ points of view, the cooperation in federalism had disappeared. Equally vexing for states was the fact that many of the federal government programs that did emerge in the 1960s and 1970s contained what are known as unfunded federal mandates. Put simply, this term means that the federal government enacted some regulation that states were required to abide by but gave no money to states to spend for this purpose. For example, in 1974, Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act. Essentially, this act stated that public water sources had to meet Environmental Protection Agency standards of purity within a given time frame. While everyone will agree that clean drinking water is a good thing, Congress left to the states and local governments the responsibility and expense of getting water supplies tested and of removing pollutants and impurities if any were found. Governments that did not comply with the act faced stiff federal penalties and, in extreme circumstances, could be forced to ¿nd some other water supply—however inconvenient or expensive doing so might be. State and local governments, already short of time and money, bristled at what they saw as unreasonable burdens imposed by SDWA. This and other unfunded federal mandates would eventually be amended or repealed so as to lessen the burden on state and local governments; however while they were in effect, relations between these governments and the federal government strained. ‘‘New Federalism’’ and Beyond Ronald Reagan assumed the presidency in 1981 with an eye toward vastly curbing federal government power that had increased thanks to the growth of unfunded mandates and the deterioration of cooperative federalism. Reagan, a conservative political thinker dubious of big government, served as governor of the state of California from 1967 to 1975. He had experienced ¿rst-hand the frustration visited upon states by the federal government and unfunded mandates. Reagan sought to shrink federal government power and return more autonomy to the states by greatly reducing unfunded mandates and by changing how federal grants operated. In doing so, he built upon the groundwork laid 44 The Basics of American Government by another Republican president, Richard Nixon, who had initiated a practice of µµrevenue sharing’’ in 1972 in an effort to shift some power and responsibility back to state and local government through a federal assistance program. Political scientists refer to what Reagan ushered in as New Federalism because of its novelty. It had several key features. Soon after assuming of¿ce, President Reagan rallied public opinion to urge Congress to make drastic cuts in both federal domestic programs and income tax rates. This action created an environment in which the federal government took in less revenue and had fewer programs to disburse back to the states the revenue it did collect. Consequently, state and local governments had to become more self-suf¿cient, which lessened the power the federal government had over them. But things did not stop there. Another key feature of New Federalism was a heavy reliance on block grants. Recall that in cooperative federalism, the federal government offered states and municipalities categorical grants. These grants came with many strings attached and required states to spend any federal dollars they received doing very speci¿c things. Block grants are very unlike categorical grants because states and local governments receive sums of money along with better Àexibility in determining how the funding can be spent. Additionally, federal government oversight or monitoring of block grant funds is relatively light. All of these actions had the effect of reducing the inÀuence of the federal government over state and local governments since the power of the purse is effectively transferred to the latter. While block grants had been around in one form or another since the 1960s or so, New Federalism employed them with a gusto not yet seen in the United States to give states increased agency in governing areas ranging from healthcare to education to transportation, etc. The trends of New Federalism and the downsizing of the federal government generally continued to...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

View attached explanation and answer. Let me know if you have any questions.

1

Nursing Question

Student’s name
Affiliation
Course
Instructor
Date

2
Question one
Federalism is the existence of one national solid or central government possessing much
power, while the states have less authority. In the United States of America, federalism is the
system of government used. The five federalism powers include; expressed power that belongs to
the national government and implied authority that also belongs to the federal regime.
Additionally, there are the powers that the states share with the national government termed as the
concurrent power, the mysterious forces that the national government is not given, and inherent
power.
The national government should be allocated less authority than presently exists for various
reasons. The federal government has been handling serious matters such as gun control,
environmental projects, and most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tenth Amendment of
the United States constitution outlines that the influences not given to the central government by
the constitution, nor forbidden by it to the states, are earmarked to the people of the states,
respectively (Merriman, 2020). People feel that the central government has failed in its handling
of the pandemic. Even though the states should take care of public health matters, the federal
government must intervene in occasions where issues become a national or worldwide concern.
Since time immemorial, there has been tension between state governments and the federal
government over the execution of some powers. It is also worth noting that some states have
legalized marijuana while others have not. These situations put the federal government at
crossroads as the states have conflicting laws.
If the states were given more power, critical issues like gun possession could be dealt with
systematically, and there would be no reckless killings. As the state governments are closer to the

3
people than the federal government, they would be able to deal with crucial issues faster, thus
improving Americans' lives.
Question two
As the roles of government are listed in the constitution, it is also essential that the rights
and freedom of the Americans are well spelled and interpreted. Many people differ on the role of
government on its people. Freedom in a democracy provides the right to belief, possess a political
opinion or thought, and the choice to accomplish or ignore the necessities of his preferred religion.
In American democracy, the suitable equilibrium between liberty and government is
equality (Sledge & Thomas, 2021). As the saying goes, freedom without parity is anarchy, while
fairness without sovereignty is communism. In democracies, the inalienable or fundamental rights
provided in the constitution include the freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of assembly,
freedom of expression and speech, and the right to equal defense before the law.
The government should be more involved in providing the best to the American people.
According to recent research, many are so much dissatisfied with the federal government and the
senate. People feel that their lives are in the most dangerous phase as the government has allowed
and relaxed the gun possession laws (Parrott, 2020). In addition, the police have been given more
power, and they have increasingly become arrogant. On top of protecting the people, the
government is mandated to handle problems in a better way. The COVID-19 pandemic was
handled carelessly, leading to many deaths. If the federal government had taken the appropriate
measures at the start of the pandemic, then many people could be alive today. Some mistakes are
costly and unforgivable, like the loss of lives that could have otherwise been saved.
The government should also protect the minority groups in the United States. Black people
have been victims of racism since slavery time, and it is not slowing down. The police kill many

4
in unclear circumstances. For the lives of all Americans to be manageable, the federal government
should provide more assistance to the ordinary people in ...


Anonymous
This is great! Exactly what I wanted.

Studypool
4.7
Indeed
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags