In-Text Citations: The Basics // Purdue Writing Lab (Links to an external site.)
Please answer at least 1 of the following:
1-Explain “Separate but not equal”, why was this an important conversation? Do you believe this is still the case today?
2-Describe how the 13th, 14th, and 15 Amendments have affected the Black Community and other communities such as individuals with disabilities and other people of color.
3- What are the main points of Ilel, “A Healthy Dose of Anarchy”?
2/18/18, 8’00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics
Page 1 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/
Katrina’s Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in
American Politics
By Dara Strolovitch; Dorian Warren; Paul Frymer
Published on: Jun 11, 2006
Dara Strolovitch is assistant professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. She has been a research fellow at
the Brookings Institution and a visiting faculty fellow at Georgetown’s Center for Democracy and the Third Sector. Her
research and teaching focus on interest groups and social movements, and politics of race, class, gender, and sexuality.
Dorian Warren is a post-doctoral scholar at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy. He specializes in the
study of inequality and the politics of marginalized groups in American politics.
Paul Frymer is associate professor of politics and legal studies at UC Santa Cruz. He is the author of Uneasy Alliances: Race
and Party Competition in America (Princeton Press) and is currently writing about race and labor in the twentieth century.
In the public imagination, natural disasters do not discriminate, but are instead “equal opportunity”
calamities. Hurricanes may not single out victims by their race, class, or gender, but neither do such
disasters occur in historical, political, social, or economic vacuums. Instead, the consequences of such
catastrophes replicate and exacerbate the effects of extant inequalities, and often bring into stark relief
the importance of political institutions, processes, ideologies, and norms. In the words of New York
Times’ columnist David Brooks, storms like hurricane Katrina “wash away the surface of society, the
settled way things have been done. They expose the underlying power structures, the injustices, the
patterns of corruption and the unacknowledged inequalities.”
Katrina hit the Gulf Coast just as America prepared to mark the fourth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks,
and consequently, the fourth anniversary of the American government’s quest to bring American-style
freedom and democracy to other nations. The hurricane made clear, however, that the U.S. has not
resolved fundamental domestic disparities and inadequacies. Katrina did not create these inequities; it
simply added an important reminder that they are deeply embedded and constitutive of American
political, economic, and social life. From the voting rights violations of 2000, to the vast disparities in
drug laws that have resulted in the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of young African-American
and Latino men, to the continued widening of racial and wealth gaps when it comes to finances,
education, and health services, the last two decades alone have provided a series of examples that
demonstrate the vast inequalities of our democratic system, particularly as they are manifested along
racial lines. Were Katrina simply an accident of geography and ecology, we could perhaps be sanguine
that its effects might be resolved. But the disparities exposed by Katrina have deep-seated, historical and
institutional roots. While it is therefore unlikely that public policies in the aftermath of Katrina will
resolve these disparities, perhaps the inequalities laid bare by the hurricane will provide a longer-term
2/18/18, 8’00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics
Page 2 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/
The Political Roots of Race and Class Inequality in New Orleans
wake-up call to those who wish to actively build a more fair and meaningful democracy in the United
States. In particular, we hope that new attention will be paid to the role of American political
institutions in structuring and perpetuating contemporary racial, economic, regional, and gendered
inequities.
Storms and natural disasters such as Katrina always hit marginal groups in society harder than they do
other segments. Women, many of whom were primary caregivers for their children, were vastly over-
represented among those in New Orleans’ shelters, reflecting not only the gendered norms of family
relations, but the glaring statistical fact that women in America are more likely to live below the poverty
line. Similarly, the elderly and disabled faced some of the most severe horrors of Katrina, again in part
because they constitute a disproportionately high percentage of those who are impoverished, and
because too many were simply left to die in the face of rushing water due to the difficulties in rescuing
them. It was the compounded effects of the intersection of race and class inequalities, however, that was
brought most visibly to the fore by the national and international media in the days following Katrina.
Quite notably, President Bush, who had first resisted acknowledging the disproportionate impact of
Katrina on low-income and black residents of New Orleans, finally felt compelled to recognize “the
legacy of inequality.” The evidence of the centrality of racial and class inequalities is overwhelming, as
evidenced by Kanye West’s impassioned comments on television as well as by the fact that the topic
became one of discussion in such unlikely outlets as FOX news and the Rush Limbaugh show. By now,
we have all heard the damning statistics about the demographics of New Orleans residents so devastated
by Katrina: 67% are African American, 28% live below the poverty line (of whom 84% are black),
100,000 had no car, and therefore had no ability to flee the city when the storm hit.
Although jarring, these statistics can only be shocking to those who have willingly ignored systematic
evidence of what former Senator and vice presidential candidate John Edwards topically called the “two
Americas.” Edwards may not have specifically mentioned race during his popular campaign stump
speech, but social scientists and political activists have long tried to draw the nation’s attention to the
scope of racialized (and gendered) poverty in the United States, particularly in the South. It is no
accident that African Americans in New Orleans are disproportionately poor, or that a disproportionate
number of the poor in New Orleans are African American. It is the result of centuries of concerted
decision-making by political actors at the local, state, and national levels, going back to the days of
slavery and continuing up to our current political moment.1 Highlighting the roles of race and class in
attitudes about and identities of those most affected by the aftermath of Katrina draws attention to the
ways in which these divisions have played an historically significant role in conflicts about the proper
relationship between local, state, and federal governments in American politics. Though many in the
media focused on the failed political response in the immediate aftermath or Katrina, little attention was
given to the long-term effects of weakened government capacity and its core functions in providing aid,
services, and jobs to impoverished urban communities, as well as the historical role of race as a causal
factor that has shaped these intergovernmental relations.
http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/index.html#e1
2/18/18, 8’00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics
Page 3 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/
Race has always been central to debates about the proper role of the American government in aiding
those Americans in need of assistance from the inequalities that result directly from the actions of both
the government and private citizens. Whether the national government should have the capacity to
intervene into local affairs was an issue of primary importance at the nation’s naissance. At the time,
race and labor—specifically debates about the slave trade, about the maintenance and expansion of
slavery into American territories, and about the status of blacks more generally—were the sine qua non
of the conflicts between federalists and anti-federalists at the founding of the nation. Southern political
elites argued that the federal government should have no authority over the governance of local
institutions and culture; these arguments were constitutionally protected in the 10th Amendment.
Pointing to the guarantee of “states’ rights,” southern states resisted all attempts to abolish slavery,
resulting in the secession of eleven states—including Louisiana—from the nation in 1860.
The Civil War prompted by this secession did not end race-inspired conflicts over federalism. Following
the defeat of Confederate forces, the national government used its power to expand rights and resources
for blacks primarily through the Freedmen’s Bureau. Its task was to coordinate relief efforts and
redistribute educational, employment and political opportunities among newly freed and homeless
former slaves, as well as to whites who had been dislocated by the war. With the help of the Freedmen’s
Bureau and the protection of federal troops, African Americans acquired land, sought employment,
voted in large numbers, served as elected officials, and used public accommodations in the years
following the war. Most southern whites resented the federal presence and resisted efforts to equalize
the status of former slaves. President Andrew Johnson vetoed congressional renewal of the Bureau in
1866, and undercut its efforts by restoring most land to its former white owners. As the ex-Confederate
states rejoined the Union, Congress further curtailed the agency’s power and personnel, and it finally
ceased operations in 1872. Five years later, the Hayes-Tilden compromise led to the withdrawal of
federal troops, effectively ending all Reconstruction efforts in the South, sealing the fate of the vast
majority of African Americans for generations and ushering in a new era of racial and class inequality.
Southern states, with little federal resistance, enacted “Jim Crow” laws that segregated public spaces,
curtailed voting rights, and reestablished white political, economic, and social supremacy.
But debates over federalism returned during the Great Depression, leading both to an emboldened
national government with power to interfere on matters of interstate commerce to mold social policy,
and at the same time, a recognition that states’ rights would limit the New Deal’s intervention into the
southern economy and political hierarchy. These political battles, in which the federal government won
certain powers with an explicit compromise that it would not threaten southern institutions, set America
on a path-dependent course towards a vastly curtailed welfare state and one that differentiated on the
basis of race. To obtain the necessary support of southern Democrats in Congress for his legislative
agenda, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and northern Democrats agreed to a series of measures that
codified racial inequities into policy. Critical legislation such as the Wagner Act and Social Security Act
did not cover workers in occupations commonly filled by blacks, such as agricultural and domestic
workers, and enabled private and local actors to discriminate in their enactments and interpretations of
the policies. Approximately two thirds of black workers were not initially covered by critical pieces of
2/18/18, 8’00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics
Page 4 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/
New Deal legislation, at a time when 50 percent of blacks were unemployed, a proportion twice that of
whites. Consequently, while black Americans benefited in some ways from the New Deal, the policies
were severely limited in reach and, in many instances, served to systematically create racial segregation
and poverty in communities such as New Orleans. Labor laws and construction grants allowed unions to
exclude black workers through closed shops and contracts, the Federal Housing Act allowed banks and
home lenders to “redline” their home and business loan policies to exclude black communities, and
federal welfare laws allowed local governments to make determinations of need and assistance.
Southern states continued to resist federal efforts to combat segregation, discrimination, and the
increasing use of terror against blacks in the South well into the 1960s. Faced with civil rights activism, a
series of Supreme Court decisions, and critical new federal laws, conditions improved for blacks in the
“new south.” But, as Philip Klinkner and Rogers Smith have argued, this moment was brief—the
“unsteady march” toward racial equality quickly moved backward. Beginning with President Richard
Nixon, the ambitious plan of the Great Society to use federal funds to combat poverty and racial
inequality was curtailed. The Supreme Court retracted from its ambitious Equal Protection agenda,
instead privileging state and local boundaries that limited policies designed to reduce racial segregation
and inequality in employment, schools, and criminal justice. This was often a bipartisan effort,
witnessed by President Bill Clinton’s signing of welfare reform that cut federal funding sharply to those
in need of assistance. The legacies of racial and economic inequality, from slavery and segregation to the
exclusionary nature of federal aid, remain evident in every Southern state. Racial disparities in
Louisiana and New Orleans are certainly more extreme than they are in other states, but racial
inequality prevails in the former Confederacy, in no small part because of the ongoing invocation of
states’ rights to justify unequal treatment and to resist federal attempts to intervene.
It is important to recognize, however, that while states’ rights arguments have been used historically to
undergird southern racial and class inequalities, they have been invoked inconsistently. Like most
political ideologies in American politics, states’ rights is much less a fundamental and enduring
principle than a political foil that has been deployed opportunistically by political elites to advance their
interests and agenda. Southern conservatives have often invoked states’ rights to resist federal
intervention, but they have also been quick to disregard this principle when it has suited their needs, as
they did earlier this year when asking Congress to overrule a state court that allowed the removal of
Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube. Such inconsistency has historical roots that make clear that southern
invocations of the 10th Amendment have more to do with protecting their power than they do with
concerns about states’ rights. While many southern states endorsed the 10th Amendment during
constitutional debates, they also supported the Commerce Clause and the Full Faith and Credit
provisions of the Constitution—both strongly anti-state rights—in order to stop northern states from
taxing their products that were made with slave labor, and as a way of legally demanding the return of
slaves who escaped to northern free states.
Federalism then, may be a center of the debate, but it provides a smoke screen more than a concrete
barrier to political reform. The reason federalism debates are so powerful is because our national
2/18/18, 8’00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics
Page 5 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/
American (Lack of) Recognition of History and Structural Inequality
political institutions are fundamentally divided over race, a division that is as old as the nation itself. To
maintain racial hierarchies, southern Democrats and racial conservatives consistently invoke states
rights when it suits them. These interests, while a minority in American society, have always been
important pivots and veto players in the national political arena. Because our political institutions, such
as the Senate, the Electoral College, and the party system, are unduly beholden to these pivotal votes,
federal distinctions remain politically meaningful at a time when many scholars have argued that they
are antiquated and artificial. It is for this reason that even those political actors who support the
expansion of racial and economic justice have had to make political calculations that work against such
goals. This is perhaps most notable in the way that the two party system has been affected by the pivotal
role of the South. With brief exceptions, the two major political parties have been equal opportunity
ignorers of racial inequality going back to their formation in the 1820s. To win elections, parties need to
appeal to southern whites and racially conservative voters. Democrats as much as Republicans are
vividly aware of this, as the actions of national candidates from Bill Clinton to Al Gore to John Kerry
have emphatically illustrated. The poor in New Orleans only entered our television screens with Katrina,
in part because no major party presidential nominee has made race or poverty a campaign issue in
almost four decades.
Fifty years after Louis Hartz remarked that Americans were “born equal” and that, as a result, they have
no sense or interest in history or the broader development of ideas and inequities, it is not surprising
that the American response to New Orleans was viewed through an exceedingly narrow lens. Most
Americans were shocked by New Orleans and our media reflected this with pictures of the faces of
inequality capped with headings ending with question marks—How did this happen? Where did this
inequality come from? Who is to blame? The sense of wonderment is held only by some segments of the
American population, however. As is the case with many other issues, race has been the critical variable
in determining Americans’ perceptions and attitudes about Katrina’s aftermath, and about the way it
was handled by the government.
The American public is sharply divided along racial lines in its assessments of George Bush’s efforts to
help Katrina’s victims. Data from a recent poll by the Pew Research Center show that many more
African Americans (85%) than whites (63%) believe that President Bush did not do “all he could to get
relief efforts going quickly.” Moreover, race also has also shaped perceptions about why the response
was as slow and inadequate as it was. The poll results suggest that a vast majority of African Americans,
but very few whites, agree with hip-hop artist Kanye West’s charge that “George Bush doesn’t care about
black people,” and that America is set up “to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slow as
possible.” Echoing West’s sentiments, the Pew poll found that two-thirds of blacks (66%) agreed that the
government response to the hurricane would have been faster if “most of the victims had been white,”
compared to less than one-fifth (17 percent) of whites.2
The disjuncture between white and black attitudes on this question is illuminating not only for the
http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/index.html#e2
2/18/18, 8’00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics
Page 6 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/
wideness of the racial gap in responses, but also because the responses tell us about each group’s
understanding of the way in which race and racism structured individuals’ experiences of and the
government’s response to the hurricane. For white respondents, the question seemed to ask whether
overt racism had led the government to intentionally ignore black residents of New Orleans, leaving
them to suffer on purpose. This understanding is captured in First Lady Laura Bush’s denunciation of
West’s allegations as “disgusting,” and her statement that “President Bush cares about everyone in our
country.” Within this line of reasoning, unless President Bush, Michael Brown, and the Louisiana
National Guard had made explicit decisions to avoid helping or rescuing black victims of the hurricane,
no racial discrimination would have occurred.
For black respondents, however, the question was much broader, and far more subtle. Though not
disconnected from concerns about negative feelings about black people, intentional acts of
discrimination by individuals and government agencies and from the facts of the hurricane itself, black
responses are embedded within an understanding of what social theorists call structural racism. From
this perspective, the racialized impact of Katrina, though clearly more severe than anything in recent
memory, was nothing new but was instead yet another chapter in a long history in which the needs of
blacks have been ignored, and in which seemingly race-neutral policies have actually been very
specifically designed to disadvantage them, whether through provisions that excluded black workers
from social welfare protections or the use of “redlining” and other techniques that served to exclude
black Americans from government subsidies. Had anyone really been concerned about African
Americans and other poor residents of New Orleans, they would have anticipated the fact that many did
not own cars and would have arranged for transportation to help them leave the city as the storm
approached. (Although it should be noted that public officials have ignored just about every warning by
scientists, academics, and journalists of the impending disaster in New Orleans. Just last year, Mike
Davis forecasted exactly this chain of events in an article in Mother Jones magazine and his broader
books on ecological disasters, blaming directly government officials who have promoted harmful
policies for short-term benefit. A similarly prescient article appeared on the front page of the New
Orleans Times-Picayune only 3 years ago.) Instead, the plight of these residents was not even on the
President’s radar screen. Low-income and poor people always suffer more when disaster hits. Eric
Klinenberg’s recent book on the Chicago heat wave of 1995 shows the myriad ways in which African
Americans suffered most extensively from the record temperatures because of worse housing
conditions, less access to medical facilities, less attention by police, fire, and paramedics, and less urban
infrastructure designed to handle such emergencies. As the old axiom goes, “when America sneezes,
black people get pneumonia.”
In this sense, the experience of African Americans in New Orleans can serve as the “miner’s canary,” as
Lani Guinier and Gerald Torres argue. Similar to the way in which canaries alerted miners to the specter
of poisonous air, the fates that befall people who are disadvantaged by inequalities based on, for
example, race, class, and gender, are signifiers of society-wide inequalities. If policymakers and the
public heed the lessons of Katrina and make efforts to address the structural and institutional sources of
American inequality, perhaps the brunt of future disasters will not be borne by those who are the least
2/18/18, 8’00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics
Page 7 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/
Endnotes
able to endure their costs.
1 While these decisions have had disproportionate effects on African Americans in the southern states,
the exploitation of racial animosity also undermined the possibility of a comprehensive safety net that
would have benefited white poor and working-class southerners as well.
2 In addition to structuring responses, the immediate widespread reports by the media of gang violence,
mass rapes, and looting hearken back to similar tall tales about African American mayhem in the
aftermath of the civil war, the Chicago Fire, and the River Rouge Strike. Barbara Bush’s callousness
towards those suffering in relief centers similarly stems from embedded stereotypes of African American
cultural deficiencies when it comes to work ethic and responsibility.
9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com
Page 1 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print
A Healthy Dose of Anarchy
After Katrina, nontraditional, decentralized relief steps in where big government
and big charity failed.
Neille Ilel | Dec. 11, 2006 11:54 am
When I walked into Rose and Gary Singletary’s house in the black, middle-class Gentilly section
of New Orleans in February, I saw the shell of a building. The floors, the walls, and all the fixtures
—toilets, sinks, doors—had been removed. Floodwater from Hurricane Katrina had reached
higher than the Singletarys’ front door, and their home had to be stripped down to the frame to
bleach out the mold. After months of on-again, off-again work, the house was finally ready to be
rebuilt.
The couple had all but given up on getting any more than the $2,000 they had received from their
insurance company. They had been insured under a state initiative called the Louisiana Citizens
Fair Plan, administered by the American International Group. According to Americans for
Insurance Reform and other watchdog groups—not to mention several class action suits—the
group paid out $2,000 “advances” to its policy holders and then effectively disappeared through
tactics such as not answering calls, constantly changing adjusters, and conflating wind/storm
damage (covered) with flooding (not covered).
But the Singletarys were beaming. Nearly six months after the hurricane hit, their house was
miles ahead of any others in the neighborhood. It got that way not with conventional charity or
insurance, nor with government aid, but with a ragtag crew of amateurs. Were it not for a
rotating group of young volunteers, the house probably would have been in the same state as
those surrounding it: empty, only superficially cleaned, and growing more mold by the day.
“They’re a godsend,” Rose gushed. “You’ll find everybody down at Common Ground. They’ve got
lawyers, child care, computers with Internet.”
Two giant spray-painted signs point to the Common Ground Collective’s headquarters in a
church parking lot in the now infamous Ninth Ward, where the group houses its volunteers, takes
names for house gutting, and gives away bleach, buckets, respirators, canned food, and other
https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy
https://reason.com/people/neille-ilel/all
9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com
Page 2 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print
supplies. The collective was founded in the wake of Hurricane Katrina by a former Black Panther
and some street medics trained at mass protests.
Like most residents I talked to, the Singletarys had seen little of the Red Cross aside from an
occasional food truck, and they evinced nothing but frustration when I mentioned the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It was a major coup that seven men from the city had
actually arrived to pick up debris from their house on the day I visited. Of the seven, four were
dedicated solely to detouring nonexistent traffic.
The Red Cross and FEMA are under serious scrutiny for their mishandling of Katrina’s
aftermath. In addition to a very public failure to manage the immediate flooding crisis, FEMA has
been skewered in a recent Department of Homeland Security inspector general’s report, in its
own internal audit, and in private and public conversations along the Gulf Coast. The inspector
general’s report faulted the agency for poor communication, lack of preparedness, and
inadequate staffing. FEMA’s emergency housing program, which includes expensive cruise ships
and trailers that cost $30,000 apiece, is fraught with inefficiency and waste.
The Red Cross is widely thought to have performed better than FEMA, but it’s on the ropes too.
At the request of the aid organization, the FBI recently took charge of an investigation involving
volunteers who misappropriated millions meant for victims of Hurricane Katrina. A March New
York Times report revealed major gaps in the organization’s system of accountability. Red Cross
officials have acknowledged that their reaction in the storm’s aftermath was inadequate, and that
tensions, possibly race-based, have sometimes emerged between its volunteers and the residents.
Against this backdrop of failure, successes stand out starkly. Perhaps the most obvious mistake
made in the institutional response to Katrina was a failure to innovate, to ignore the old rules and
procedures when they stood in the way of helping residents in need. Individual citizens, church
groups, and a new brand of grassroots relief organizations stepped in to fill the gaps. These
grassroots groups dispense with bureaucracy and government aid. They rely instead on small
donations of money and supplies, and the commitment of on-the-ground volunteers and the
communities they serve. In addition to Common Ground, secular organizations such as
Emergency Communities, the People’s Hurricane Relief Fund, and Four Directions have joined a
multitude of small church groups in the region to provide services where government and big aid
organizations fell short. When necessary, they simply ignored the authorities’ wrongheaded
decisions: pushing supplies through closed checkpoints, setting up in unapproved areas, breaking
the rules when it made more sense than following them.
9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com
Page 3 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print
Their organizers, as well as their volunteers, have little experience with relief work. They live in
tents or sleep on cots in repurposed churches and community centers. Volunteers run the gamut
from hippie dropouts to middle-class students on spring break, and the outposts they’ve built are
filled with things you’d never expect to see anywhere near a relief effort: free acupuncture,
vegetarian cooking, cross-dressing volunteers, a giant geodesic dome. Despite their inexperience
and occasional outlandishness, they are organizing and delivering some of the most effective
relief work in the area.
They aren’t a complete solution to the problem. But they have complemented and sometimes
superseded other efforts, and the old-time charities are starting to take respectful notice of their
unusual new colleagues.
Acupuncturists Without Borders
I first heard about Common Ground in an email from my friend Jeff, a New York bohemian who
frequented underground art parties and halfway legal street events. It’s fair to say that many of
the people who organized and attended those events were of a type. They had odd jobs and even
odder side projects; they made their own clothes, and it showed. And they threw really good
parties.
So when I learned some of the same people were helping organize a relief project in New Orleans,
I was both fascinated and skeptical. When I poked around further and learned that many were
alumni of Burning Man and the Rainbow Gathering, two of the nation’s biggest, strangest
counterculture festivals, I was even more fascinated and even more skeptical. Could a bunch of
middle- and upper-middle-class kids, many of them fresh from “alternative” experiences, connect
with poor, churchgoing residents of the South? And if they could, would the experiment affect
more than a handful of residents?
To my surprise, the answers were yes and yes. As I watched these groups in action, it became
clear that they were connecting with the locals and that their services were invaluable. Residents
used words like “heaven-sent” and “angels” when describing the volunteers, even the guy serving
food in a cowboy hat and a dress.
Common Ground’s initial incarnation was a medical clinic in an Algiers mosque. Algiers is a
decidedly poor and drab cousin to the rest of New Orleans; it’s hard to believe that its sprawl of
nondescript homes and apartment buildings is just across the Mississippi River from the French
9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com
Page 4 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print
Quarter. But unlike the city across the river, Algiers didn’t flood. And within a few days of the
storm, several young men on bicycles started knocking on doors in this unremarkable place,
asking if people needed medical help. They called themselves street medics.
“A street medic,” explains Iggy River, a Common Ground volunteer, “is a person with an
indeterminate amount of knowledge, usually from mass gatherings or street protests, of acute
need first aid”—treatment for dehydration, cuts, broken bones. With his dark disheveled hair and
giant wooden ear spools, Iggy looked like he would be more at home at a World Trade
Organization protest than coordinating supplies in the ruins of a poor black neighborhood.
Indeed, it was for such protests that the street medics learned their craft. After Katrina, street
medics provided first aid and basic medical services such as blood pressure and diabetes testing.
The renegade volunteers soon ran into Malik Rahim, a neighborhood activist and former Black
Panther, and Common Ground was born. By the time I visited, the group’s clinic had moved into
a permanent storefront location and was staffed by three motherly receptionists, two
acupuncturists, and one overworked doctor. The acupuncturists hailed from Acupuncturists
Without Borders, one of the more curious groups founded after Katrina. To accommodate
medical volunteers from all over the country, the state of Louisiana allowed out-of-state
practitioners to provide treatment without a Louisiana license. The acupuncturists fell under that
umbrella.
In the clinic’s waiting room a man with diabetes waited for acupuncture with his wife. Since the
hurricane, Dennis Waits had come back to his job as a furniture restorer. But because only two of
his colleagues also returned to work, the company was cut from its health insurance program.
Waits, a solidly-built, middle-aged white man in a work shirt, did not look like an adherent of
alternative medicine. But his diabetes had led to a condition called nephrotic syndrome that
caused painful swelling in his legs and feet. It wasn’t easy for him to swallow his pride and get
care from a free clinic, but he was up to two shots of cortisone a day, and it was wearing off after a
few hours. In any case, he wasn’t afraid to have needles put into his wrists.
‘You’re Seeing Life Here’
Waveland, Mississippi, is one of those small Gulf Coast towns that wasn’t covered much by the
national media but suffered Katrina’s winds and storm surge as much as anyplace else. It’s also
where a band of hippies from the Rainbow Gathering landed just after the storm. “Waveland was
as far as you could go then,” said David Sayotovich, a tall, skinny 51-year-old who has been
9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com
Page 5 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print
attending Rainbow Gatherings since the 1980s.
Every year, usually in July, a group of like-minded folks get together for a week or so in a national
forest to honor the ideals of peace, love, and cooperation. Begun in 1972, the Rainbow Gathering
is an institution of the American counterculture; it brought an estimated 15,000 participants to
the Routt National Forest for its annual gathering this year, according to the Denver Post. Most
people associate the group with drumming and smoking pot, but the group also manages to cook
and serve meals for a large number of people with no running water and no electricity. To people
like Sayotovich, it was a no-brainer to use those skills to help people hurt by Katrina.
With encouragement from a local church group, a Rainbow busload of volunteers decamped in
Waveland, pitched tents across from the police station, and started serving hot meals to the
displaced. “The FEMA people said, ‘You can’t do this—it’s not in the manual,’ but we got away
with it,” Sayotovich said with a grin.
Dubbed the New Waveland Café, the operation didn’t just feed residents. It encouraged them to
participate in cooking, cleaning, and other details that went into running the aid effort,
transforming the helped into helpers. Tales of how the residents of this small Southern town took
to a group of hippies reached as far as the Chicago Tribune, which reported that the group ran its
kitchen so well that one Red Cross volunteer quit to join them instead. The Gambit, a New
Orleans alt-weekly, described a police officer looking the other way when the smell of marijuana
drifted out of the Rainbow camp.
“You’re not just seeing a truck driving around passing out Styrofoam containers of food,” said
Mark Weiner, taking a dig at the Red Cross. “You’re seeing life here.” Behind him a 40-foot
geodesic dome—a tent repurposed from the 35,000-person Burning Man art festival in Nevada—
was beginning to fill with the day’s lunch crowd. The 23-year-old Weiner is a founder and
executive director of the nonprofit Emergency Communities, which set up shop in the parking lot
of what once was Finish Line Off-Track Betting in storm-ravaged St. Bernard Parish, just east of
New Orleans. There it operated the Made With Love Café and other assorted services, including a
clothing swap, Internet terminals, and a children’s play area.
Weiner had never run an aid organization before. He hadn’t really run anything before, which
was at once obvious and hard to believe. His phone rang constantly. Young volunteers ran up
with questions at a sustained clip. Weiner accommodated every request with answers that
seemed to be pulled out of the air: “Sounds great.” “Whatever you think is best.” “Totally.” It
9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com
Page 6 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print
sounds like a recipe for chaos, but behind him trays of coconut curry soup were being instantly
replenished as the food line emptied into the cafeteria.
A fresh-faced graduate of Columbia University, Weiner was your typical young hipster living in
Brooklyn and applying for law school when Katrina hit. Like nearly every volunteer I
encountered, he tried to sign up with the Red Cross first. After he registered online, the Red Cross
informed him he would have to wait weeks to attend a training session before he could see any
action. “Basically,” he recalled, “I was impatient.”
Then he found out about the New Waveland Café. There he met Scott Ankeny, a 34-year-old
magazine publisher who had been at Burning Man when Katrina hit. When the Rainbow kitchen
organizers closed shop, the two decided to expand on the Waveland principles by opening a food
kitchen in the denser New Orleans area.
They settled on St. Bernard Parish, where the devastation was so complete that some say there
may have been only two homes in the area untouched by floodwaters. Weiner and Ankeny
estimate that the food kitchen served around 1,400 meals a day to construction workers, relief
workers, and residents who came back to rebuild. In February, there were still no restaurants or
grocery stores open for miles. For most of the diners at the Made With Love Café, the only other
option was eating packaged food brought in from elsewhere. Five months after Katrina, the few
Red Cross trucks that had been seen early on weren’t coming around anymore.
Nearly all the ingredients at the café were donated directly from companies or individuals who
were similarly frustrated with the bureaucracy of the traditional avenues for giving. The café’s
roots in the Rainbow subculture were on vivid display. Twenty-six-year-old Lali, a slip of a
woman in homemade clothes and a giant head wrap, was the “head kitchen mama”; she believed
in using as many fresh organic ingredients as possible, which is not ordinarily a priority in the
wake of a hurricane.
Lali began volunteering in Waveland with friends from the Rainbow Gathering, going on to set up
the St. Bernard Parish operation with Weiner and around a dozen others. “We’re looked at as
outsiders in the rest of the world,” she said. “This is a great opportunity for us to prove ourselves,
to be seen in a better light, not to be judged as people who freeload”—a reputation that haunts the
hippie Rainbows. The meals at the café were delicious: curried vegetables, roasted organic
chicken, homemade apple pie. I tried to eat there whenever possible, as did every resident I
talked to.
9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com
Page 7 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print
One of the first principles of Emergency Communities was that anyone was invited to come down
and help. “If you’re a volunteer and want to come down for two days, we say come on down,”
Weiner said. “You don’t need ‘training.’ We’ll give you two hours of orientation right here.” And
so behind the tents for eating, cooking, picking up free supplies, and checking email were a
hodgepodge of more ramshackle tents connected by a makeshift boardwalk of moving pallets.
Volunteers, who ran the gamut from homeschooled high school students to a father-son duo on a
bonding weekend, just had to get as far as the New Orleans airport. Emergency Communities
housed them, fed them, and put them to work. According to Weiner, 1,400 volunteers came
through the camp, and the café served about 160,000 meals to 15,000 residents and workers in
the six months it was open. (It’s impossible to verify his numbers independently. For that matter,
it’s impossible to verify the Red Cross’ numbers independently.)
Disaster Relief As Civil Disobedience
“The most important thing to remember is that this was a catastrophe rather than a disaster,”
says E.L. Quarantelli, co-founder of the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware.
The Red Cross tried to operate as it has in most American disasters—and that usually works just
fine. But this wasn’t a typical situation. The relief groups’ own headquarters were destroyed, as
were local trained workers’ homes. You couldn’t reliably reach people by phone or email. And
when the Red Cross was prevented from going into some areas, by physical hazards or by local
authorities, it didn’t react like the Rainbows, a group used to operating without the law on its
side. It simply turned back.
Quarantelli says it’s not unusual to see informal community groups stepping in during a crisis.
But traditionally it’s religious groups that engage in this sort of decentralized relief. The
Mennonites, for example, have been at it so long they’ve developed a formal organization, the
Mennonite Central Committee, which sends workers to disaster areas all over the world.
Grassroots relief organizations like Common Ground and Emergency Communities, with no
religious affiliation and with members and organizers who are overwhelmingly from outside the
community, do not fit the Disaster Research Center’s model of what kinds of groups emerge to
deal with disasters. Their emergence, Quarantelli allows, can be attributed in part to the Internet,
where people who wanted to volunteer could be matched with groups that needed them instantly,
without an existing social network such as a church.
Relying extensively on Internet communities like Craigslist and Tribe.net, the volunteer groups
are technically savvy; all had wireless networks in their headquarters. Perhaps more significant,
9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com
Page 8 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print
they have a do-it-yourself culture and a concept they call mutual aid. “We take your house, we
help you in repairing it. You help us by putting up our volunteers,” explained Sundjata Koné, a
spokesperson for Common Ground.
In dealing with the disaster’s victims, this approach seemed not only natural but also necessary.
Most were not used to standing in food lines or asking strangers to come work on their homes for
free. They wanted to pitch in.
Take Amie Roberts. She used to cut hair at a St. Bernard salon before it flooded. When she
started coming to eat at the Made With Love Café, it didn’t take long for her to realize that what
was left of the parish citizenry needed somewhere to get their hair cut. She mentioned the idea to
the volunteers at the café, and they provided her with a tent and some chairs. She brought her
own scissors and a donation can. “I wanted to do it for the residents,” she told me while snipping
away at the head of a Red Cross worker from Arkansas. By all accounts hers was the only
functioning hair salon in the entire parish, attracting dozens of residents, contractors, and relief
workers a day.
The term “mutual aid” isn’t as touchy-feely as it might initially sound. The Russian anarchist
Peter Kropotkin advanced the concept in the early 20th century as an argument against the idea
that people are naturally inclined to compete against one another. The concept remains popular
among radicals today, and some of the relief workers in the area espouse anarchist politics.
When locals trying to rebuild asked Common Ground for help getting the proper permits, the
group’s policy was to help rebuild, building permits or not. “We’re essentially breaking the law,”
Koné told me, pausing for emphasis. “That’s civil disobedience.” If it keeps people from living in
mold-filled houses, he said, then Common Ground will do it. The logic of the approach became
clear to me after I spent weeks trying to get in touch with anyone at the New Orleans Department
of Safety and Permits. I was hoping to get the department’s reaction to Koné and other critics
who called it inefficient and unresponsive to ordinary residents. No one ever returned my calls.
Common Ground’s call to action is “Solidarity Not Charity.” Its logo features a fist holding a
hammer on one side and a medical cross on the other, á la Bolshevik-era posters. Volunteers
argue online about whether the group is too authoritarian or not authoritarian enough, whether
there are too many anti-oppression workshops or too few. As Owen Thompson, a college student
and Common Ground volunteer, has pointed out in the webzine Toward Freedom, it makes
sense for New Orleans to be attractive to anarchists right now: Here is a place where government
9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com
Page 9 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print
failed absolutely, and as such it could be the perfect place to argue that government itself is a
failure.
Koné was happy to do just that. “They [FEMA and the Red Cross] come in, and they have all the
money,” he said. “They do much less than we do. And they put their volunteers up at hotels, or on
cruise liners. And that’s our tax money that FEMA’s using for that.” Like other organizers, and
many locals, he marveled at the money donated to the Red Cross—$2.1 billion at last count—and
how little he’s seen them do with it. “They pay themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in
salaries,” he said. “And they claim they’re broke!”
Is It Enough?
The smaller groups’ nimbleness deserves a lot of credit for their successes. Allowing residents and
victims to shape the services they receive is a necessary part of disaster relief and is done best by
small local groups, says Joseph Trainer, projects coordinator at the University of Delaware’s
Disaster Research Center. The sheer exuberance of creatively organizing to help others is also an
important factor. The same naive eagerness that inspires skepticism in some of us is an asset
when none of the traditional avenues for getting things done works.
The first time I met Iggy River, the young man who told me what a street medic is, I was sitting in
a coffee shop in the Bywater section of New Orleans. He was one of two men in their early 20s
whom I overheard talking authoritatively, maybe a little self-importantly, about supplies for a
health clinic in Algiers. They spoke with a pride that bordered on giddiness.
That conversation was a sharp contrast with the measured words of the director of the New
Orleans chapter of Habitat for Humanity, or the director of the Red Cross chapter, or any
representatives of the large, traditional relief and post-disaster recovery organizations that
normally claim the authority to perform this type of work. Those people had decades of
experience managing crises. They had staffs of volunteers who expected leadership. They
reported to national hierarchies and had a brand name to protect. “It’s not always wise to accept
someone coming through the front door,” Quarantelli notes. And with all that money coming
through the pipe, it’s not hard to see why. But these big groups end up turning away the Young
Turks who are ready to ride their bikes around a deserted city with nothing but a hunch that they
will find people in need.
In an April interview with NPR, acting Red Cross Director Jack McGuire admitted the
9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com
Page 10 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print
organization had made major mistakes after Katrina, including not reaching out to community
groups that were doing some of the best work in the area. The organization promises to
implement a “cultural shift” that includes working more closely with grassroots organizations, a
tack the institution has historically shied away from. Kay Wilkins, CEO of Red Cross’ Southeast
Louisiana chapter, called Katrina “the great equalizer” of relief organizations. After its blunders
with supplies and volunteers, the Red Cross’ reputation as the charity that could do no wrong has
been squashed.
“I’ll go to any meeting now,” Wilkins says. “I work with groups I had never really worked with.”
While the grassroots groups will gladly take help from the behemoth Red Cross, they emphasize
that their lack of hierarchy and take-anyone approach were not merely born of necessity. They
worked that way by design.
But couldn’t that design have flaws as well? It’s one thing to tear down Sheetrock on a house, but
the liability issues involved in allowing amateurs to build a house are a lawyer’s nightmare—or
dream. I asked organizers at both Common Ground and Emergency Communities what
protections they had in place to avoid lawsuits from either residents or volunteers. They all
answered with the same shrug.
And during hurricane season it’s not safe to have volunteers sleeping in Kelty tents in parking
lots. In fact, the Made With Love Café closed its makeshift kitchen on June 15, leaving a
permanent community center called Camp Hope in its wake. The United Way and the local
government asked the café’s organizers to start a new food kitchen in neighboring Plaquemines
Parish. They served their first meal there on June 1.
Common Ground scaled back its house gutting significantly during the hot summer months and
housed more volunteers in more stable structures. The group is turning its attention to more
permanent aspects of rebuilding, such as job training for returning residents in the construction
and mechanics trades, and workshops on “rebuilding green”—that is, using environmentally
sensitive tactics and materials in reconstruction. It’s too soon to tell if these grassroots
organizations will grow into permanent institutions resembling the big groups they once railed
against, or if the spontaneous network of activists will dissipate until the next big disaster. Iggy
River, for one, was on his way back home to Maine when we last spoke in June.
For Rose and Gary Singletary, the help Common Ground provided has been invaluable, but in the
end it wasn’t nearly enough. When I spoke to them again in May, their house looked much like it
9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com
Page 11 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print
did when Common Ground volunteers picked up their tools and moved on. “Everything is at a
standstill,” Rose said. They are still trying to get more help from their homeowner’s insurance;
more important, the neighborhood’s residents aren’t sure the levee on the London Avenue Canal
will protect their homes from another serious hurricane. Mardi Gras and JazzFest may go on, but
a single drive through New Orleans remains breathtaking. The devastation is relentless. “It’s a
struggle,” Rose told me. “You’re trying to do something in a year that it took your whole life to
do.”
The ad hoc efforts of amateurs haven’t fixed the devastated Gulf Coast. But neither have the
centrally organized efforts of government authorities and traditional aid groups. The large
agencies trusted with caring for citizens in their time of greatest need have something to learn
from the idealists in New Orleans: Unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures. Rules
made when there was electricity don’t always work when all the lights are out.
Neille Ilel is a writer and reporter living in Los Angeles, California.
56
American
Federalism
2
Watch the Video at myanthrolab
Study and Review the Pre-Test and Flashcards at myanthrolab
Read the Document at myanthrolab
Read the
Document The
Title of the Documen
t
Goes Here at myanthrolab
View the Image at myanthrolab
Map the Concepts at myanthrolab
Explore the Concept at myanthrolab
Simulate the Experiment at myanthrolab
Listen to the Audio File at myanthrolab
Read and Listen to Chapter 2 at myanthrolab
Read the Document at myanthrolab
Sample Document Title Text
Map the Concepts at myanthrolab
Sample Concept Title Text
Margin sample
Listen to Chapter 2 on MyPolisciLab
he relationship of the national government to the states has been the subject of
intense debate since the founding.1 In 1787, members of what would become
the Federalist Party defended the creation of a strong national government. Their
rivals, the Anti-Federalists, warned that a strong national government would over-
shadow the states. The debate over which level of government best represents
the people continues to this day.
State governments often complain that the national government is either taking over respon-
sibilities that belong to them under the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, which reserves to them
all powers not given to the national government, or controlling too much of what they do. Yet, in
policy areas such as civil rights, educational opportunities for people with disabilities, and hand-
gun control, the states have been slow to respond, and the national government has taken steps
to deal with these issues.
At the same time, states retain enormous authority under the Constitution to regulate life
within their borders. Working with the local governments they create, states police the streets,
fight fires, impose their own taxes, create most of the laws that govern their citizens, define
the meaning of marriage, set the rules for elections and register voters, run the public schools,
and administer most of the programs to help the poor, even when the money for those pro-
grams comes from the national government. This broad scope begs the question, where does the
national government end and state government begin?
This question involves a host of questions that involve how far states can go in drafting their
own laws and how aggressive they should be in enforcing national laws. Under Article I, for
example, the Founders gave Congress the power to set the rules regarding naturalization, which
is the process by which immigrants are given U.S. citizenship and the rights that go with it.
2.
1
Interpret the
definitions of
federalism, and
analyze the
advantages and
disadvantages of
the American sys-
tem of federalism,
p. 59.
Differentiate
the powers the
Constitution pro-
vides to national
and state govern-
ments, p. 66.
2.2
Assess the role
of the national
courts in defining
the relationship
between the
national and state
governments,
and evaluate
the positions of
decentralists and
centralists, p. 72.
2.
3
Evaluate the
budget as a tool
of federalism, and
its impact on state
and local govern-
ments, p. 76.
2.
4
Describe the rela-
tionship between
the national and
state governments
and the chal-
lenges for federal-
ism, p. 81.
2.
5
T
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 56 11/19/12 1:44 PM
57 57
Alabama’s tough immigration law requires police, schools, and hospitals
to ask citizens for proof of their citizenship, even if the ones provid-
ing the proof are in grade school. One of the parents of this Alabama
student is a U.S. citizen, while the other is an undocumented immigrant,
meaning that one of her parents could soon be deported if the Alabama
law remains in force.
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 57 11/19/12 1:44 PM
58
2
So what? If American government was a type of cake, what cake would it be?
using marble cake as a metaphor, author Paul C. Light explains the importance of
understanding America’s “blended” government so that students can determine
which level or branch can best address their concerns.
6
In the Real world Should the federal government be allowed to mandate
health care reform or should that power belong to the states? hear supporters
and detractors of obamacare explain their opinions, and learn about the recent
Supreme Court decision that handed this power to the federal government.
In the Real world
health care reform or should that power belong to the states? hear supporters
and detractors of obamacare explain their opinions, and learn about the recent
Supreme Court decision that handed this power to the federal government.
5
Thinking Like a political Scientist find answers to the most current questions
that scholars of federalism are raising in the areas of welfare reform and state
rights. barnard College political scientist Scott L. minkoff explores the challenges
faced by state-rights advocates once they are elected to Congress.
4
In Context what is the primary mechanism for federalism in the united States?
In this video, barnard College political scientist Scott L. minkoff explains how the
national government tries to force state governments to adopt its policies and how
state governments respond.
In Context
In this video, barnard College political scientist Scott L. minkoff explains how the
national government tries to force state governments to adopt its policies and how
state governments respond.
3
The basics Are you a states-right advocate? This video will help you understand
how powers and responsibilities are divided between the national and state
governments. You’ll also discover how the powers of the national government have
expanded and consider whether this is in the best interests of the people.
The big picture Is the national government the same thing as the federal
government? Not quite. Author Paul C. Light explains the difference, as well as
the types of government that make up America’s federal system—from national
to local and from executive to judicial.
1
MyPoliSciLab Video Series Watch on MyPoliSciLab
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 58 11/19/12 1:44 PM
59
2.4
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.1
In recent years, however, many states have passed laws that challenge the national gov-
ernment’s supremacy in setting rules covering undocumented immigrants who reside in the
U.S. illegally. With the nation and most states suffering from high unemployment starting in
2008 and continuing to this day, some states have argued that undocumented immigrants are
taking jobs that would go to U.S. citizens. They have passed laws that put tight restrictions on
state benefits such as public education and college tuition benefits for the children of illegal
immigrants. Although some of these laws have been declared unconstitutional by the national
courts, states continue to try new ways of reducing illegal immigration. In 2006, 84 immigra-
tion bills were enacted by state legislatures and signed into law; by 2010, the number had
climbed to 364, with further increases in 2011.2
In June 2011, for example, Alabama enacted one of the most restrictive immigration
laws in the nation. Under the law, illegal immigrants are considered state criminals who are
subject to arrest and possible imprisonment. Most significantly, the law requires that public
schools must check the immigration status of all their students. Under the provision, school
children were required to reveal the immigration status of their parents.
In revealing their own immigration status, students had little choice but to tell school
administrators whether their parents were in the United States legally. Although any child
born in the United States is automatically deemed a citizen under national law and the
Constitution, some Alabama school children were born to illegal immigrants. As a result,
many parents kept their children home on October 1 when the law took effect, and some
fled the state to avoid the law.3 The same law also contained a provision that required
residents of mobile homes to prove their legal status before renewing their annual home
registration tags.
Even as the Alabama law was going into effect, an equally tough Arizona law was mov-
ing toward the Supreme Court. After hearing arguments in April, a 5 to 3 majority declared
that the national government, not the states, had the “broad, undoubted power over the
subject of immigration and the status of aliens.” The national laws were supreme to any
state laws,rendering most of Arizona’s law unconstitutional. At the same time, the Court
did permit Arizona to implement its “show me your papers” provision, which gives police
the authority to ask drivers for their citizenship papers when stopped for other reasons. The
Court ruled that the provision was a constitutional exercise of state powers. It is still not
clear how much of Alabama’s law will survive further tests based on the Court’s decision.
For now, Alabama says it is still in force.4
In this chapter, we first define federalism and its advantages and disadvantages. We
then look at the constitutional basis for our federal system and how court decisions and
political developments have shaped, and continue to shape, federalism in the United
States. Throughout, you should think about how you influence the issues you care about,
even in your local city council or mayor’s office. The Constitution clearly encourages, and
even depends on, you to express your view at all levels of government, which is why
action in a single state can start a process that spreads to other states or the national
government.
Defining Federalism
Interpret the definitions of federalism, and assess the advantages and disadvantages of
the American system of federalism.
2.1
ars have been fought over what federalism means in part because the term
itself is laden with ideological interpretation.5
Federalism, as we define it in nonpartisan terms, is a form of govern-
ment in which a constitution distributes authority and powers between
a central government and smaller regional governments—usually called states or
provinces—giving to both the national and the state governments substantial respon-
sibilities and powers, including the power to collect taxes and to pass and enforce laws
federalism
A constitutional arrangement in which
power is distributed between a cen-
tral government and states, which are
sometimes called provinces in other
nations. The national and states exer-
cise direct authority over individuals.
W
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 59 11/19/12 1:44 PM
60
2.4
2.2
2.5
2.3
2 .1
regulating the conduct of individuals. When we use the term “federalism” or “federal
system,” we are referring to this system of national and state governments; when we use
the term “federal government” in all other chapters of this book, we are referring to the
Congress, presidency, and judiciary created under the U.S. Constitution.
The mere existence of both national and state governments does not make a system
federal. What is important is that a constitution divides governmental powers between the
national government and state governments, giving clearly defined functions to each.
Neither the central nor the regional government receives its powers from the other;
both derive them from a common source—the Constitution. No ordinary act of legis-
lation at either the national or the state level can change this constitutional distribution
of powers. Both levels of government operate through their own agents and exercise
power directly over individuals.
Constitutionally, the federal system of the United States consists of only the
national government and the 50 states. “Cities are not,” the Supreme Court reminded
us, “sovereign entities.”6 This does not make for a tidy, efficient, easy-to-understand
system; yet, as we shall see, it has its virtues.
There are several different ways that power can be shared in a federal system, and
political scientists have devised terms to explain these various, sometimes overlapping,
kinds of federalism. At different times in the United States’ history, our system of
federalism has shared power based on each of these interpretations:
• Dual or “layer-cake” federalism is defined as a strict separation of powers between
the national and state governments in which each layer of has its own responsi-
bilities, and reigns supreme within its constitutional realm. Dual federalism was
dominant from the 1790s until the 1930s.
• Cooperative or “marble-cake” federalism is defined as a flexible relationship between
the national and state government in which both work together on a variety of
issues and programs.7 Cooperative federalism was dominant from the 1930s
through the 1970s.
• Competitive federalism is defined as a way to improve government performance by
encouraging state and local governments to compete against each other for resi-
dents, businesses, investment, and national funding.8 Competitive federalism has
coexisted with other definitions of federalism since the 1980s.
State and local governments are responsible for policing the streets but not for enforcing federal laws.
Still, they often work with national agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug
Enforcement Administration. This kind of joint action is an example of cooperative federalism.
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 60 11/19/12 1:44 PM
61
2.4
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.1
• Permissive federalism is defined as a strong national government that only allows,
or permits the states to act when it decides to do so. Although federalism gener-
ally assumes that the national and state governments will share power, permissive
federalism argues that the power to share belongs to the national government, and
national government alone.9 Permissive federalism has been dominant on specific
issues such as civil rights since the 1960s.
• Coercive federalism is also defined as a strong national government that exerts tight
control of the states through orders or mandates—typically without accompanying
financial resources. If states want federal grants, they must follow the mandates.
Coercive federalism is sometimes called centralized federalism, which focuses on
the national government’s strong voice in shaping what states do. Coercive feder-
alism has also been dominant on specific issues such as public education and the
environment since the 1960s.
• New federalism is defined as a recent effort to reduce the national government’s
power by returning, or devolving responsibilities to the states. It is sometimes
characterized as part of the devolution revolution discussed later in this chapter.
The new federalism has been seen as a modern form of dual federalism based
on the Tenth Amendment, and was first introduced by President Richard
Nixon in 1969.
Alternatives to Federalism
Among the alternatives to federalism are unitary systems of government, in which
a constitution vests all governmental power in the central government. The central
government, if it so chooses, may delegate authority to constituent units, but what it
delegates, it may take away. China, France, the Scandinavian countries, and Israel have
unitary governments. In the United States, state constitutions usually create this kind
of relationship between the state and its local governments.
At the other extreme from unitary governments are confederations, in which
sovereign nations, through a constitutional compact, create a central government
but carefully limit its authority and do not give it the power to regulate the conduct
of individuals directly. The central government makes regulations for the constitu-
ent governments, but it exists and operates only at their direction. The 13 states
under the Articles of Confederation operated in this manner, as did the southern
Confederacy during the Civil War. The closest current example of an operating
confederacy in the world is the European Union (EU), which is composed of
27 nations. Although the EU does bind its members to a common currency called
the Euro, and does have a European Parliament and European Court of Justice and
European Commission, members such as France, Germany, Italy, and Spain retain
their own laws and authority. The EU may look like a confederation, but it acts more
like a traditional alliance such as the United Nations, or the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.1
0
Even among all the nations that call themselves federations, there is no single
model for dividing authority between the national and state governments. Some coun-
tries have no federal system at all, whereas others have different variations of power
sharing between the national and state governments. Indeed, even the United States
has varied greatly over time in its balance of national–state power.
Britain’s government, for example, is divided into three tiers: national, county, and
district governments. County and district governments deliver roughly one-fifth of all
government services, including education, housing, and police and fire protection. As a
rule, most power is reserved for the central government on the theory that there should
be “territorial justice,” which means that all citizens should be governed by the same
laws and standards. In recent years, however, Great Britain has devolved substantial
authority to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
unitary system
A constitutional arrangement that
c on c e n t r a t e s p owe r i n a c e n t r a l
government.
confederation
A constitutional arrangement in which
sovereign nations or states, by compact,
create a central government but care-
fully limit its power and do not give it
direct authority over individuals.
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 61 11/19/12 1:44 PM
62
2.4
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.1 The Global Community
Global Opinion on the Role of Government
State and local governments are on the front lines of most programs for helping the needy. They provide
much of the money and/or administration for unemploy-
ment insurance for the jobless, health care clinics and
hospitals for the poor, school lunch programs for hun-
gry children, and homeless shelters. Although many
U.S. citizens see poverty firsthand as volunteers for
local charities such as food pantries, some have doubts
about how much government should do to help poor
people who cannot take care of themselves. According
to the Pew Research Center’s Spring 2007 Global
Attitudes Survey, citizens of other nations vary greatly
on the question of whether “It is the responsibility of
the (state or government) to take care of very poor peo-
ple who can’t take care of themselves.”
These opinions reflect very different social and eco-
nomic conditions in each country. Japan has a culture
of self-reliance that puts the burden on individuals to
help themselves, while Nigeria continues to suffer from
some of the highest poverty rates in the world. In this
regard, U.S. citizens tend to mirror the Japanese—they
want government to help the less fortunate but also
want the less fortunate to help themselves. As a gen-
eral conclusion, citizens of wealthier nations think poor
people should take advantage of the opportunities that
already exist in their economies, whereas citizens of
poor nations believe that government should be more
aggressive in providing support.
This does not mean wealthier nations are uncaring
toward citizens in need, but it does suggest that they
sometimes view poverty as the fault of the poor. In the
United States, these opinions reflect the importance of
equality of opportunity as a basic social value, mean-
ing that all individuals regardless of race, gender, or
circumstance have the same opportunity to participate
in politics, self-government, and the economy. Most
Americans want to help the less fortunate, but only
when they are truly needy, not when they fail because
they will not help themselves.
CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages
of having the government provide services for
the poor?
2. Why might more wealthy nations be more
likely to believe that individuals ought to take
care of themselves and not rely on the state?
3. Which level of government might be most
effective in providing services to the poor?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
B
ri
t
a
in
C
h
in
a
P
e
rc
e
n
t
In
d
ia
J
a
p
a
n
M
e
x
ic
o
N
ig
e
ri
a
U
n
it
e
d
S
ta
te
s
Completely Agree Mostly Agree
It is the responsibility of the government to
take care of the poor.
Advantages of Federalism
In 1787, federalism was a compromise between centrists, who supported a strong
national government, and those who favored decentralization. Confederation had
proved unsuccessful. A unitary system was out of the question because most people
were too deeply attached to their state governments to permit subordination to central
rule. Many scholars think that federalism is ideally suited to the needs of a diverse peo-
ple spread throughout a large continent, suspicious of concentrated power, and desiring
unity but not uniformity. Yet, even though federalism offers a number of advantages
over other forms of government, no system is perfect. Federalism offered, and still
offers, both advantages and disadvantages.
FEdERALISm CHECKS THE GROwTH OF TyRANNy Federalism has not always
prevented tyranny, even in the United States, when Southern states seceded from
SOURCE: Pew Research Center, Global Views on Life Satisfaction,
National Conditions, and the Global Economy: Highlights from the 2007
Pew Global Attitudes 47-Nation Survey (Pew Research Center, 2007).
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 62 11/19/12 1:44 PM
63
2.4
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.1
the Union rather than end slavery. Today, however, U.S. citizens tend to associate
federalism with freedom.11 When one political party loses control of the national
government, it is still likely to hold office in a number of states and can continue to
challenge the party in power at the national level. To the Framers, who feared that
a single interest group might capture the national government and suppress the
interests of others, this diffusion of power was an advantage. There are now nearly
90,000 governments in the United States, including one national government,
50 state governments, and thousands of county, city, and town governments, as well
as school boards and special districts that provide specific functions from managing
hospitals or parks to mosquito control.12 (See Figure 2.1 for the number of govern-
ments in the United States.)
FEdERALISm ALLOwS UNITy wITHOUT UNIFORmITy National politicians
and parties do not have to iron out every difference on every issue that divides us,
whether the issue is abortion, same-sex marriage, gun control, capital punishment,
welfare financing, or assisted suicide. Instead, these issues are debated in state leg-
islatures, county courthouses, and city halls. Information about state action spreads
quickly from government to government, especially during periods when the national
government is relatively slow to respond to pressing issues.
FEdERALISm ENCOURAGES ExpERImENTATION As Justice Louis Brandeis
once argued, states can be laboratories of democracy. 13 If they adopt pro-
grams that fail, the negative effects are limited; if programs succeed, they can be
adopted by other states and by the national government. Georgia, for example, was
the first state to permit 18-year-olds to vote; Wisconsin was a leader in requir-
ing welfare recipients to work; California moved early on global warming; and
Massachusetts created one of the first state programs to provide health insurance
to all its citizens.
FEdERALISm pROvIdES TRAINING ANd CREATES OppORTUNITIES FOR
FUTURE NATIONAL LEAdERS Federalism provides a training ground for state
Special districts
School districts
Townships or towns
Municipalities
Counties
States
National
13,506
16,504
3,034
50
1
35,052
19,429
F I G U R E 2 . 1 NumbEr of SEPArATE GovErNmENTS IN ThE fEDErAL SYSTEm
◼ How do the levels and numbers of governments in the United States help to prevent tyranny?
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Statistical Abstract of the United States, www.census.gov/prod/2012/tables/12s428 .
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 63 11/19/12 1:44 PM
64
2.4
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.1
and local politicians to gain experience before moving to the national stage.
Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush pre-
viously served as governor of the respective states of Georgia, California, Arkansas,
and Texas. All totaled, 20 of the nation’s 44 presidents served as governor at some
points before winning the presidency. In addition, three former governors ( Jon
Huntsman, Rick Perry, and Mitt Romney) ran for the Republican Party nomina-
tion for president in 2012, and several were heavily recruited for the campaign but
declined.
FEdERALISm KEEpS GOvERNmENT CLOSER TO THE pEOpLE By providing
numerous arenas for decision making, federalism provides many opportunities for
Americans to participate in the process of government and helps keep government
closer to the people. Every day, thousands of U.S. adults serve on city councils,
school boards, neighborhood associations, and planning commissions. Federalism
also builds on the public’s greater trust in government at the state and local levels.
The closer the specific level of government is to the people, the more citizens trust
the government.
disadvantages of Federalism
dIvIdING pOwER mAKES IT mUCH mORE dIFFICULT FOR GOvERNmENT
TO RESpONd QUICKLy TO NATIONAL pRObLEmS There was a great demand
for stronger and more effective homeland security after the September 11, 2001, ter-
rorist attacks, and the national government created a new Department of Homeland
Security in response. However, the department quickly discovered that there would
be great difficulty coordinating its efforts with 50 state governments and thousands
of local governments already providing fire, police, transportation, immigration, and
other governmental services.
THE dIvISION OF pOwER mAKES IT dIFFICULT FOR vOTERS TO HOLd ELECTEd
OFFICIALS ACCOUNTAbLE When something goes well, who should voters re-
ward? When something goes wrong, who should they punish? When Hurricane
Katrina hit New Orleans and the surrounding areas in late August 2005 (and
Rita less than a month later near Houston), many thousands of people lost their
homes and billions of dollars in damage was done. Who was responsible? Did
the national government and agencies like the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) drop the ball on relief efforts, or was it the state or local govern-
ment ’s responsibility? Did the mayor and/or governor fail to plan adequately for
such a crisis, or should the national government have had more supplies on hand
in advance?
THE LACK OF UNIFORmITy CAN LEAd TO CONFLICT States often disagree on
issues such as health care, school reform, and crime control. In January 2008, for
example, California joined 15 other states in suing the national government over
a ruling issued by the national Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For
decades, the EPA had allowed California to enact tougher air quality restrictions
through higher mileage standards than required by the national Clean Air Act (first
enacted in 1970). The Bush administration rejected a similar request for permission
to raise mileage standards in 2008, only to be reversed by the Obama administra-
tion in 2009.
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 64 11/19/12 1:44 PM
65
OF the People Diversity in America
The United States is a nation of immigrants who have arrived from many parts of the world.
Throughout the decades, the portrait of immigrants has
been changing from mostly white to mostly minority. In
2009, for example, 38.5 million Americans, or 12.5 per-
cent, were foreign born, consisting of 16.8 million natu-
ralized citizens, 10 million long-term visitors, and less
than 11 million undocumented immigrants. The number
of unauthorized, or illegal, immigrants has fallen some-
what in recent years due to the economic recession,
which has depressed employment opportunities.
Many foreign-born residents live in the nation’s larg-
est cities. The New York City-area population includes
more than 3 million foreign-born residents, while Los
Angeles includes another 1.5 million; Miami, slightly
more than 2 million; Chicago, just under 600,000, and
San Francisco, 275,000. Although inner cities host
a majority of foreign-born residents, there has been
recent movement of immigrants to the suburbs and
some movement toward certain areas of the country
such as the southwest.
The changing face of America brings great diver-
sity in all aspects of life, from schools to farm fields
and small businesses. It also enriches the quality of life
through the mix of old and new cultures, and can often
be a source of innovation in how the economy operates.
However, this diversity also provokes complaints
about undocumented immigrants. Some groups com-
plain that undocumented immigrants take jobs that
should go to U.S. citizens, whereas others worry about
the costs associated with high poverty rates.
Governments at all levels must reconcile these
pros and cons with our history of welcoming immi-
grants from all around the world.
QUESTIONS
1. How are foreign-born citizens from different
regions of the world different from each other?
2. Why do you think foreign-born citizens tend
to live in our nation’s largest cities?
3. How do foreign-born citizens contribute to
the nation’s quality of life?
Where Americans Come From and Where They Live
The Statue of Liberty symbolizes America’s long tradition of
welcoming immigrants to its shores.
vARIATION IN pOLICIES CREATES REdUNdANCIES, INEFFICIENCIES, ANd
INEQUALITIES Labor laws, teacher certification rules, gun ownership laws, and even
the licensing requirements for optometrists vary throughout the 50 states, and this is
on top of many national regulations. Companies seeking to do business across state
lines must learn and abide by many different sets of laws, while individuals in licensed
professions must consider whether they face recertification if they choose to relocate
to another state. Where national laws do not exist, it is tempting for each state to try to
undercut others’ regulations to get a competitive advantage in such areas as attracting
new industry, regulating environmental concerns, or setting basic eligibility standards
for welfare or health benefits.
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.2
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 65 11/19/12 1:44 PM
66
2.1
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.2
The Constitutional Structure of
American Federalism
Differentiate the powers the Constitution provides to national and state governments.2.2
delegated (express) powers
Po w e r s g i v e n e x p l i c i t l y t o t h e
national government and listed in the
Constitution.
implied powers
Powers inferred from the express
powers that allow Congress to carry
out its functions.
necessary and proper clause
T h e c l a u s e i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) setting
forth the implied powers of Congress.
It states that Congress, in addition
to its express powers, has the right to
make all laws necessary and proper to
carry out all powers the Constitution
vests in the national government.
inherent powers
The powers of the national gov-
ernment in foreign affairs that the
Supreme Court has declared do not
depend on constitutional grants but
rather grow out of the national gov-
ernment ’s obligation to protect the
nation from domestic and foreign
threats.
he division of powers and responsibilities between the national and state
governments has resulted in thousands of court decisions, as well as hun-
dreds of books and endless speeches to explain them—and even then the
division lacks precise definition. Nonetheless, it is helpful to have a basic
understanding of how the Constitution divides these powers and responsibilities and
what obligations it imposes on each level of government.
The constitutional framework of our federal system is relatively simple:
1. The national government has only those powers delegated to it by the
Constitution (with the important exception of the inherent power over foreign
affairs).
2. Within the scope of its operations, the national government is supreme.
3. The state governments have all of the powers not delegated to the central
government except those denied to them by the Constitution and their state
constitutions.
4. Some powers are specifically denied to both the national and state governments;
others are specifically denied only to the states or to the national government.
powers of the National Government
The Constitution explicitly gives legislative, executive, and judicial powers to the
national government. In addition to these delegated or expressed powers, such as the
power to regulate interstate commerce and to appropriate funds, the national govern-
ment has assumed constitutionally implied powers, such as the power to create banks,
which are inferred from delegated powers. The constitutional basis for the implied pow-
ers of Congress is the necessary and proper clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). This
clause gives Congress the right “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested … in the
Government of the United States.” (Powers specifically listed in the Constitution are
also called express powers because they are listed expressly.)
In foreign affairs, the national government has inherent powers. The national
government has the same authority to deal with other nations as if it were the central
government in a unitary system. Such inherent powers do not depend on specific con-
stitutional provisions but exist because of the creation of the national government itself.
For example, the government of the United States may acquire territory by purchase or
by discovery and occupation, even though no specific clause in the Constitution allows
such acquisition.
The national and state governments may have their own lists of powers, but the
national government relies on four constitutional pillars for its ultimate authority over
the states: (1) the supremacy clause, (2) the war power, (3) the commerce clause, and espe-
cially (4) the power to tax and spend for the general welfare. All four of these pillars are
discussed individually below.
Together, however, they have permitted a steady expansion of the national govern-
ment’s functions to the point where some states complain they have lost the power to
regulate their own actions. Despite the Supreme Court’s recent declaration that some
national laws exceed Congress’s constitutional powers, the national government has,
in effect, almost full power to enact any legislation that Congress deems necessary, so
long as it does not conflict with provisions of the Constitution designed to protect
T
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 66 11/19/12 1:44 PM
67
2.1
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.2
individual rights and the powers of the states. In addition, Section 5 of the Fourteenth
Amendment, ratified in 1868, gives Congress the power to enact legislation to remedy
constitutional violations and the denial of due process or equal protection of the laws.
THE SUpREmACy CLAUSE The supremacy clause may be the most important pillar
of U.S. federalism. Found in Article VI of the Constitution, the clause is simple and
direct: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made…under the Authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not-
withstanding.” Under the clause, state and local governments may not ignore or cre-
ate their own substitutes for national laws and regulations. Because national laws and
regulations of national agencies are supreme, conflicting state and local regulations are
unenforceable. States must abide by the national government’s minimum wage laws,
for example, but are allowed to set the minimum wage higher if they wish.
THE wAR pOwER The national government is responsible for protecting the nation
from external aggression, whether from other nations or from international terrorism.
The government’s power to maintain national security includes the power to wage war.
In today’s world, military strength depends not only on the presence of troops in the
field, but also on the ability to mobilize the nation’s industrial might and apply scien-
tific and technological knowledge to the tasks of defense. As Charles Evans Hughes,
who became chief justice in 1930, observed: “The power to wage war is the power to
wage war successfully.”14 The national government is free to create “no-fly” zones only
for its military aircraft both within and across state borders, for example, and may use
any airports it needs during times of war or peace.
T H E p O w E R T O R E G U L A T E I N T E R S T A T E A N d F O R E I G N C O m m E R C E
Congressional authority extends to all commerce that affects more than one state.
Commerce includes the production, buying, selling, renting, and transporting of goods,
services, and properties. The commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) packs a
tremendous constitutional punch; it gives Congress the power “to regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” In
these few words, the national government has found constitutional justification for
regulating a wide range of human activity because few aspects of our economy today
affect commerce in only one state, the requirement that would render the activity out-
side the scope of the national government’s constitutional authority.
The landmark ruling of Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824, affirmed the broad authority of
Congress over interstate commerce.15 The case involved a New York state license that
gave Aaron Ogden the exclusive right to operate steamboats between New York and
New Jersey. Using the license, Ogden asked the New York state courts to stop Thomas
Gibbons from running a competing ferry. Although Gibbons countered that his boats
were licensed under a 1793 act of Congress governing vessels “in the coasting trade and
fisheries,” the New York courts sided with Ogden. Just as the national government and
states both have the power to tax, the New York courts said they both had the power
to regulate commerce.
Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court and asked a simple question: Which
government had the ultimate power to regulate interstate commerce? The Supreme
Court gave an equally simple answer: The national government’s laws were supreme.
Gibbons v. Ogden was immediately heralded for promoting a national economic
common market, in holding that states may not discriminate against interstate trans-
portation and out-of-state commerce. The Supreme Court’s brilliant definition of
“commerce” as intercourse among the states provided the basis for national regulation of
“things in commerce”16 and an expanding range of economic activities, including the
sale of lottery tickets,17 prostitution,18 radio and television broadcasts,19 and telecom-
munications and the Internet.
supremacy clause
C o n t a i n e d i n A r t i c l e I V o f t h e
Constitution, the clause gives national
laws the absolute power even when
states have enacted a competing law.
commerce clause
T h e c l a u s e i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) that
gives Congress the power to regulate
all business activities that cross state
lines or affect more than one state or
other nations.
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 67 11/19/12 1:44 PM
68
2.1
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.2
THE pOwER TO TAx ANd SpENd Congress lacks constitutional authority to pass
laws solely on the grounds that they will promote the general welfare, but it may raise
taxes and spend money for this purpose. For example, even when the national govern-
ment lacks the power to regulate education or agriculture directly, it still has the power
to appropriate money to support education or to pay farm subsidies. By attaching con-
ditions to its grants of money, the national government creates incentives that affect
state action. If states want the money, they must accept the conditions.
When the national government provides the money, it can determine how the
money will be spent. By withholding or threatening to withhold funds, the national
government can influence or control state operations and regulate individual conduct.
For example, the national government has stipulated that national funds should be
withdrawn from any program in which any person is denied benefits because of race,
color, national origin, sex, or physical handicap. The national government also used its
“power of the purse” to force states to raise the drinking age to 21 by tying such a con-
dition to national dollars for building and maintaining highways.
Congress frequently requires states to provide specific programs—for example, ser-
vices to indigent mothers, and clean air and water. These requirements are called federal
mandates. Often the national government does not supply the funds required to carry out
“unfunded mandates” (discussed later in the chapter). Its failure to do so has become an
important issue as states face growing expenditures with limited resources.
powers of the States
The Constitution reserves for the states all powers not granted to the national government,
subject only to the limitations of the Constitution. Only the states have the reserve
powers to create schools and local governments, for example. Both are powers not given
exclusively to the national government by the Constitution or judicial interpretation, so
that states can exercise these powers as long as they do not conflict with national law.
The national and state governments also share powers. These concurrent powers
with the national government include the power to levy taxes and regulate commerce
internal to each state.
In general, states may levy taxes on the same items the national government taxes,
such as incomes, alcohol, and gasoline, but a state cannot, by a tax, “unduly burden”
commerce among the states, interfere with a function of the national government,
complicate the operation of a national law, or abridge the terms of a treaty of the
United States. However, where the national government has not asserted its supremacy,
states may regulate interstate businesses, provided these regulations do not cover mat-
ters requiring uniform national treatment or unduly burden interstate commerce.
(See Table 2.1 for the constitutional division of powers.)
Who decides which matters require “uniform national treatment” or what actions
might place an “undue burden” on interstate commerce? Congress does, subject to the
president’s signature and final review by the Supreme Court. When Congress is silent
or does not clearly state its intent, the courts—ultimately, the Supreme Court—decide
whether there is a conflict with the national Constitution or whether a state law or
regulation has preempted the national government’s authority.
Constitutional Limits and Obligations
To ensure that federalism works, the Constitution imposes restraints on both the
national and the state governments. States are prohibited from doing the following:
1. Making treaties with foreign governments
2. Authorizing private citizens or organizations to interfere with the shipping and
commerce of other nations
3. Coining money, issuing bills of credit, or making anything but gold and silver
coins legal tender in payment of debts
Though many states allow the use of
medicinal marijuana, the Supreme Court
decided that the national government
could regulate its use in the states as a
form of interstate commerce.
federal mandate
A requirement the national govern-
ment imposes as a condition for
receiving federal funds.
reserve powers
All powers not specifically delegated
to the national government by the
Constitution. The reserve power can
be found in the Tenth Amendment to
the Constitution.
concurrent powers
Powers that the Constitution gives to
both the national and state govern-
ments, such as the power to levy taxes.
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 68 11/19/12 1:44 PM
69
2.1
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.2
4. Taxing imports or exports
5. Taxing foreign ships
6. Keeping troops or ships of war in time of peace (except for the state militia, now
called the National Guard)
7. Engaging in war
In turn, the Constitution requires the national government to refrain from exer-
cising its powers, especially its powers to tax and to regulate interstate commerce,
in such a way as to interfere substantially with the states’ abilities to perform their
responsibilities. But politicians, judges, and scholars disagree about whether the
national political process—specifically the executive and the legislature—or the
courts should ultimately define the boundaries between the powers of the national
government and the states. Some argue that the states’ protection from intrusions by
the national government comes primarily from the political process because senators
TAbLE 2.1 ThE CoNSTITuTIoNAL DIvISIoN of NATIoNAL AND STATE PowErS
Examples of Powers Delegated to the National Government
Regulate trade and interstate commerce
Declare war
Create post offices
Coin money
Examples of Powers Reserved for State Governments
Create local governments
Police citizens
Oversee primary and elementary education
Examples of Concurrent Powers Shared by the National and State Governments
Impose and collect taxes and fees
Borrow and spend money
Establish courts at their level of government
Enact and enforce laws
Protect civil rights
Conduct elections
Protect health and welfare
Under national pressure and the threat that they will lose national funding if they do not act, states have raised
the drinking age to 21. States are also under pressure to monitor drunk driving more aggressively. When states
operate these checkpoints because they will lose national funding, the action reflects coercive federalism.
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 69 11/19/12 1:44 PM
70
2.1
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.2
You Will Decide
Should Citizens Have the Right to Choose Their Time to Die?
Many Americans suffer great pain as they strug-gle with cancer and other diseases in the last
few months of life. Although modern medicine offers
a number of options for easing the pain through hos-
pice and drug therapies, some citizens would prefer to
end their lives on their own schedule through what was
once mislabeled as “assisted suicide.”
This term often creates images of euthanasia
by raising the specter of doctors and government
making the decision about when a terminally ill
patient should be given the drugs to die. In recent
years, however, the term has been replaced by the
concept of “end-of-life-choice.” Driven by the “death
with dignity” movement, which is led by a public
interest group called “Compassion and Choice”
(www. compassionandchoice.org), the campaign has
won voter approval in Oregon, Washington, Montana,
and Hawaii. Under current law in these states, patients,
not doctors, are given the option of ending their own
lives through drugs that ease them into a life-ending
coma, or deep sleep, leading to death within minutes.
These states require at least two doctors to certify
that a patient has only six months or less to live. With
this certification in hand, the doctors are allowed to give
the patient a prescription for the life-ending drugs. Having
decided to end his or her life, the patient is asked two
questions before taking the drugs: (1) Do you wish to end
your life, and (2) Are you able to administer the drugs by
your own hand? If the patient answers yes to both ques-
tions, he or she is given the drugs to act. Some patients
decide to take the drugs, while others do not.
What do you think? Should all states give their
citizens the right to end their own lives?
*Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).
**Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997).
***Baxter v. Montana, — P.3d —-, 2009 WL 5155363 (Mont. 2009).
Thinking It Through
These citizen-approved laws have been tested in the national courts to see whether states have the
right to allow their citizens to choose their own time
of death.
In a landmark 1990 decision, the Supreme Court
decided that states could allow their citizens to express
their desire to refuse unwanted medical treatment
such as food and water at the end of their lives and to
appoint someone to speak for them when they could
not.* In 1997, however, the Supreme Court ruled that the
Constitution did not guarantee a right to die.**
According to these rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court
acknowledged a citizen’s right to take control of certain
aspects of their death, but also affirmed a state legis-
lature’s right to prohibit anyone from providing help in
dying. Also under the rulings, states, not the national
government, had the responsibility to pass laws either
allowing or prohibiting doctor aid in ending life. Since
there is no right to die in the U.S. Constitution, it is also
up to state courts to uphold or reject end of life laws
under their own constitutions.
The Montana Supreme Court did so on December
31, 2009, when it decided that doctors could provide
end of life drugs, provided that the patient was mentally
competent and clearly aware of the consequences of
his or her action and was able to take the drugs without
assistance.*** On January 1, 2010, the Montana “Death
with Dignity Act” went into effect.
It is not clear whether the movement toward “death
with dignity” will spread to other states. Although advo-
cates believe they have a chance in other western states
where voters have the right to pass legislation under the
initiative power, state legislatures in other states have
been reluctant to raise the issue because it is so contro-
versial. Some citizens define the choice as a form of sui-
cide, and in direct violation of their religious beliefs. Other
opponents argue that no one can be sure when they will
die even when they have a terminal disease. The right to
choose one’s time of death may be permitted under state
and national constitutions, but is still a choice that citizens
and their legislators must allow.
CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS
1. Why did the U.S. Supreme Court decide not to
reverse state laws regulating the end of life?
2. Why would a state legislature be reluctant
to pass end-of-life legislation? Which groups
favor such laws and which do not?
3. Is a law needed at all on the end of life issue?
Should either the national or state govern-
ments get involved in this issue?
and representatives elected from the states participate in congressional decisions.20
Others maintain that the Supreme Court should limit the national government’s
power and defend the states.21
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 70 11/19/12 1:44 PM
71
On a case-by-case basis, the Court has held that the national government may not
command states to enact laws to comply with or order state employees to enforce national
laws. In Printz v. United States, the Court held that states were not required to conduct
instant national background checks prior to selling a handgun.22 Referring broadly to the
concept of dual federalism discussed earlier in this chapter, the Supreme Court said that
the national government could not “draft” local police to do its bidding. But as previously
discussed, even if the national government cannot force states to enforce certain national
laws, it can threaten to withhold its funding if states do not comply with national policies,
such as lowering the minimum drinking age or speed limit.
The Constitution also obliges the national government to protect states against
domestic insurrection. Congress has delegated to the president the authority to dis-
patch troops to put down such insurrections when the proper state authorities
request them.
Interstate Relationships
Three clauses in the Constitution, taken from the Articles of Confederation, require
states to give full faith and credit to each other’s public acts, records, and judicial
proceedings; to extend to each other’s citizens the privileges and immunities of their
own citizens; and to return persons who are fleeing from justice.
FULL FAITH ANd CREdIT The full faith and credit clause (Article IV, Section
1), one of the more technical provisions of the Constitution, requires state courts to
enforce the civil judgments of the courts of other states and accept their public records
and acts as valid.23 It does not require states to enforce the criminal laws or legisla-
tion and administrative acts of other states; in most cases, for one state to enforce the
criminal laws of another would raise constitutional issues. The clause applies primarily
to enforcing judicial settlements and court awards.
INTERSTATE pRIvILEGES ANd ImmUNITIES Under Article IV, Section 2, indi-
vidual states must give citizens of all other states the privileges and immunities they
grant to their own citizens, including the protection of the laws, the right to engage
in peaceful occupations, access to the courts, and freedom from discriminatory taxes.
Because of this clause, states may not impose unreasonable residency requirements,
that is, withhold rights to American citizens who have recently moved to the state and
thereby have become citizens of that state.
ExTRAdITION In Article IV, Section 2, the Constitution asserts that, when
individuals charged with crimes have fled from one state to another, the state
to which they have fled is to deliver them to the proper officials on demand of
the executive authority of the state from which they fled. This process is called
extradition. “The obvious objective of the Extradition Clause,” the courts have
claimed, “is that no State should become a safe haven for the fugitives from a sister
State’s criminal justice system.”24 Congress has supplemented this constitutional
provision by making the governor of the state to which fugitives have fled respon-
sible for returning them.
INTERSTATE COmpACTS The Constitution also requires states to settle disputes
with one another without the use of force. States may carry their legal disputes to the
Supreme Court, or they may negotiate interstate compacts. Interstate compacts often
establish interstate agencies to handle problems affecting an entire region. Before most
interstate compacts become effective, Congress has to approve them. Then the com-
pact becomes binding on all states that sign it, and the national judiciary can enforce
its terms. A typical state may belong to 20 compacts dealing with such subjects as en-
vironmental protection, crime control, water rights, and higher education exchanges.25
full faith and credit clause
T h e c l a u s e i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n
(Article IV, Section 1) requiring each
state to recognize the civil judg-
ments rendered by the courts of the
other states and to accept their public
records and acts as valid.
extradition
The legal process whereby an alleged
criminal offender is surrendered by
the officials of one state to officials of
the state in which the crime is alleged
to have been committed.
interstate compact
An agreement among two or more
states. Congress must approve most
such agreements.
2.1
2.4
2.5
2.2
2.3
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 71 11/19/12 1:44 PM
72
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.5
2.3
national supremacy
A constitutional doctrine that when-
ever conflict occurs between the con-
stitutionally authorized actions of the
national government and those of a
state or local government, the actions
of the national government prevail.
Assess the role of the national courts in defining the relationship between the national
and state governments, and evaluate the positions of decentralists and centralists.
2.3
lthough the political process ultimately decides how power will be divided
between the national and the state governments, the national court sys-
tem is often called on to umpire the ongoing debate about which level of
government should do what, for whom, and to whom. The nation’s highest
court claimed this role in the celebrated case of McCulloch v. Maryland.
McCulloch v. Maryland
In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court had the first of many chances to
define the division of power between the national and state governments.26 Congress
had established the Bank of the United States, but Maryland opposed any national
bank and levied a $10,000 tax on any bank not incorporated in the state. James William
McCulloch, the cashier of the bank, refused to pay on the grounds that a state could
not tax an instrument of the national government.
Maryland was represented before the Court by some of the country’s most
distinguished lawyers, including Luther Martin, who had been a delegate to the
Constitutional Convention. Martin said the Constitution did not expressly delegate
to the national government the power to create a bank. Martin maintained that the
necessary and proper clause gives Congress only the power to choose those means and
to pass those laws absolutely essential to the execution of its expressly granted pow-
ers. Because a bank is not absolutely necessary to the exercise of its delegated powers,
Martin argued, Congress had no authority to establish it.
The national government was represented by equally distinguished lawyers, most
notably, Daniel Webster. Webster conceded that the power to create a bank was not
one of the express powers of the national government. However, the power to pass laws
necessary and proper to carry out Congress’s express powers is specifically delegated to
Congress. Webster argued that the Constitution leaves no room for doubt which level
of government has the final authority. When national and state laws conflict, Webster
argued, the national law must be obeyed.
Speaking for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice John Marshall rejected every one
of Maryland’s contentions. He summarized his views on the powers of the national
government in these now-famous words: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within
the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly
adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit
of the constitution, are constitutional.”
Having established the presence of implied national powers, Marshall then outlined
the concept of national supremacy. No state, he said, can use its taxing powers to tax
a national instrument. “The power to tax involves the power to destroy…. If the right
of the States to tax the means employed by the general government be conceded, the
declaration that the Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, shall be the
supreme law of the land, is empty and unmeaning declamation.” Marshall’s ruling was
based on the Constitution’s supremacy clause.
It is difficult to overstate the long-range significance of McCulloch v. Maryland
in providing support for the developing forces of nationalism and a unified economy.
If the contrary arguments in favor of the states had been accepted, they would have
strapped the national government in a constitutional straitjacket and denied it powers
needed to deal with the problems of an expanding nation.
A
The National Courts and
Federalism
Explore on MyPoliSciLab
Simulation: You Are a
Federal Judge
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 72 11/19/12 1:44 PM
73
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.5
2.3
National Courts and the Relationship with the States
The authority of national judges to review the activities of state and local governments
has expanded dramatically in recent decades because of modern judicial interpretations
of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids states to deprive any person of life, lib-
erty, or property without due process of the law. States may not deny any person the
equal protection of the laws, including congressional legislation enacted to implement the
Fourteenth Amendment. Almost every action by state and local officials is now subject
to challenge before a national judge as a violation of the Constitution or of national law.
Preemption occurs when a national law or regulation takes precedence over a
state or local law or regulation. State and local laws are preempted not only when they
conflict directly with national laws and regulations, but also when they touch on a field
in which the “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed
to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.”27 Examples of national
preemption include laws regulating hazardous substances, water quality, clean air stan-
dards, and many civil rights acts, especially the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting
Rights Act of 1965.
Throughout the years, national judges, under the leadership of the Supreme Court,
have generally favored the powers of the national government over those of the states.
Despite the Supreme Court’s recent bias in favor of state over national authority, few
would deny the Supreme Court the power to review and set aside state actions. As
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court once remarked, “I do not think
the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of
Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that
declaration as to the laws of the several States.”28
The Supreme Court and the Role of Congress
From 1937 until the 1990s, the Supreme Court essentially removed national courts
from what had been their role of protecting states from acts of Congress. The
Supreme Court broadly interpreted the commerce clause to allow Congress to do
States are responsible for registering voters, but the national government is responsible for assuring that
state registration rules are constitutional.
preemption
The right of a national law or regula-
tion to preclude enforcement of a state
or local law or regulation.
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 73 11/19/12 1:44 PM
74
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.5
2.3
whatever Congress thought necessary and proper to promote the common good,
even if national laws and regulations infringed on the activities of state and local
governments.
In the past 15 years, however, the Supreme Court has signaled that national courts
should be more active in resolving federalism issues.29 The Court declared that a state
could not impose term limits on its members of Congress, but it did so by only a 5-to-4
vote. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, built his argument on the
concept of the federal union as espoused by the great Chief Justice John Marshall, as a
compact among the people, with the national government serving as the people’s agent.
The Supreme Court also declared that Congress had the power to regulate com-
merce between states and Native Indian tribes, but not the power to allow national
courts to resolve conflicts between the two.30 Unless states consent to such suits, they
enjoy “sovereign immunity” under the Eleventh Amendment. The effect of this deci-
sion goes beyond Indian tribes. As a result—except to enforce rights stemming from
the Fourteenth Amendment, which the Court explicitly acknowledged to be within
Congress’s power—Congress may no longer authorize individuals to bring legal
actions against states to force their compliance with national law in either national or
state courts.31
Building on those rulings, the Court continues to press ahead with its “constitu-
tional counterrevolution”32 and return to an older vision of federalism from the 1930s.
Among other recent rulings, in United States v. Morrison, the Court struck down por-
tions of the Violence Against Women Act, which had given women who are victims
of violence the right to sue their attackers for damages.33 Congress had found that vio-
lence against women annually costs the national economy $3 billion, but a bare major-
ity of the Court held that gender-motivated crimes did not have a substantial impact
on interstate commerce and that Congress had thus exceeded its powers in enacting
the law and intruded on the powers of the states.
These Supreme Court decisions—most of which split the Court 5 to 4 along ideo-
logical lines, with the conservative justices favoring states’ rights—have signaled a shift
in the Court’s interpretation of the constitutional nature of our federal system. It is
a shift that has been reinforced with the most recent Supreme Court appointments
made by Presidents Bush and Obama. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel
Alito, each appointed by President George W. Bush, tend to favor the states, while
justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Obama appointees, tend to side with the
national government.
The Continuing debate between
Centralists and decentralists
From the beginning of the Republic, there has been an ongoing debate about the
“proper” distribution of powers, functions, and responsibilities between the national
government and the states. Did the national government have the authority to outlaw
slavery in the territories? Did the states have the authority to operate racially seg-
regated schools? Could Congress regulate labor relations? Does Congress have the
power to regulate the sale and use of firearms? Does Congress have the right to tell
states how to clean up air and water pollution?
Today, the debate continues between centralists, who favor national action on
issues such as environmental protection and gun control, and decentralists, who defend
the powers of the states and favor action at the state and local levels on these issues.
THE CENTRALIST pOSITION The centralist position has been supported by presi-
dents, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Theodore
Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson were particularly strong support-
ers, and the Supreme Court has generally ruled in favor of the centralist position.
Centralists reject the idea of the Constitution as an interstate compact. They view
it as a supreme law established by the people. The national government is an agent of
centralists
People who favor national action over
action at the state and local levels.
decentralists
People who favor state or local action
rather than national action.
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 74 11/19/12 1:44 PM
75
the people, not of the states, because it was the people who drew up the Constitution
and created the national government. They intended that the national political process
should define the central government’s powers and that the national government be
denied authority only when the Constitution clearly prohibits it from acting.
Centralists argue that the national government is a government of all the peo-
ple, whereas each state speaks for only some of the people. Although the Tenth
Amendment clearly reserves powers for the states, it does not deny the national
government the authority to exercise all of its powers to the fullest extent. Moreover,
the supremacy of the national government restricts the states because governments
representing part of the people cannot be allowed to interfere with a government
representing all of them.
THE dECENTRALIST pOSITION Among those favoring the decentralist or states’
rights interpretation were the Anti-Federalists, Thomas Jefferson, the pre–Civil War
statesman from South Carolina John C. Calhoun, the Supreme Court from the 1920s
to 1937, and, more recently, Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, the
Republican leaders of Congress, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and cur-
rent Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Most decentralists contend that the Constitution is basically a compact among
sovereign states that created the central government and gave it limited authority. Thus
the national government is little more than an agent of the states, and every one of its
powers should be narrowly defined. Any question about whether the states have given a
states’ rights
Po w e r s e x p r e s s l y o r i m p l i c i t l y
reserved to the states.
States have the power to prohibit texting while driving for their citizens, while the federal government has
the power to prohibit texting while driving for truck and bus drivers engaged in interstate commerce.
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.4
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 75 11/19/12 1:44 PM
76
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.4
ongress authorizes programs, establishes general rules for how the pro-
grams will operate, and decides whether room should be left for state or
local discretion and how much. Most important, Congress appropriates
the funds for these programs and generally has deeper pockets than even
the richest states. National grants are one of Congress’s most potent tools for influenc-
ing policy at the state and local levels.
National grants serve four purposes, the most important of which is the fourth:
1. To supply state and local governments with revenue
2. To establish minimum national standards for such things as highways and
clean air
3. To equalize resources among the states by taking money from people with high
incomes through national taxes and spending it, through grants, in states where
the poor live
4. To attack national problems but minimize the growth of national agencies
Types of National Government Grants
National, or federal, grants can be classified on two separate dimensions: (1) how much
discretion the national government uses in making the grant decision and, (2) what
kinds of requirements the national government puts on how the funding can be spent.
There are four types of national grants to the states: (1) project grants, (2) formula grants,
(3) categorical grants, and (4) block grants (sometimes called flexible grants). According
to the national government’s 2011 tracking reports, states received about $25 billion in
Analyze the budget as a tool of federalism, and evaluate its impact on state and local
governments.
2.4
particular function to the central government or have reserved it for themselves should
be resolved in favor of the states.
Decentralists believe that the national government should not interfere with
activities reserved for the states. Their argument is based on the Tenth Amendment,
which states: “The 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.”
Decentralists insist that state governments are closer to the people and reflect the peo-
ple’s wishes more accurately than the national government does.
Decentralists have been particularly supportive of the devolution revolution,
which argues for returning responsibilities to the states.34 In the 1990s, the Republican-
controlled Congress gave states more authority over some programs such as welfare,
and President Clinton also proclaimed, “The era of big government is over.” However,
he tempered his comments by adding, “But we cannot go back to the time when our
citizens were left to fend for themselves,” and despite its dramatic name, the revolution
has fallen short of the hoped-for results.
The national government has continued to enact laws regulating the states.
Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, for example, Congress passed a long list
of laws giving states specific responsibilities for defending homeland security, including
the implementation of national criteria for issuing driver’s licenses. It has also ordered
states not to sell any citizen’s personal information to private companies, ended state
regulation of mutual funds, nullified state laws that restrict telecommunication com-
petition, and given the national judiciary the power to prosecute a number of state and
local crimes, including carjacking and acts of terrorism.
The National Budget as a
Tool of Federalism
C
devolution revolution
The effort to slow the growth of the
national government by returning
many functions to the states.
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 76 11/19/12 1:44 PM
77
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.4
project grants that year, $485 billion in formula grants, $682 billion in categorical grants,
and $9 billion in block grants.35 (As we shall see below, these grant totals often contain a
mix of different kinds of grants—for example, categorical grants often contain formula
grants. Thus, the total of all grants to the states in 2010 was $600 billion. By 2016, the
president’s budget office estimates that the total will rise by another $100 billion.36)
pROjECT GRANTS The national government supports states through project grants
for specific activities, such as scientific research, homeland security, and some edu-
cation programs. Most project grants are awarded through a competitive process
following an application process. Project grants are generally restricted to a fixed
amount of time and can only be spent within tight guidelines. Many university-
based medical schools rely on project grants to support their efforts to cure life-
threatening diseases such as cancer and heart disease. In order for a state or local
government to receive funding through a project grant, the state or local government
must apply for the funding. This gives the grantor the discretion to approve some
applications and reject others based typically on the technical requirements of the
individual grant program.
FORmULA GRANTS Formula grants are distributed to the states based on proce-
dures set out in the granting legislation. The simplest formula is population—each
recipient government receives a certain number of dollars for each person who lives
in the jurisdiction. More complex formulas might define the target population—for
example, the number of people below the poverty line or above the age of 65. Other
formulas do not involve people at all, but specific measures of a problem such as the
number of boarded-up houses in a state. Early rounds of homeland security funding
were based largely on a population formula, while the most recent rounds have taken
both population and the risk of a terrorist attack into consideration in granting funds
to state and local governments.
CATEGORICAL GRANTS Categorical grants are made for specific purposes; hence,
the term “categorical.” Categorical grants for specific purposes, such as Medicaid
health care for the poor, are tightly monitored to ensure that the money is spent exactly
as directed. Categorical grants have the most strings attached—state and local govern-
ments need to conform to all aspects of the funding legislation in order to receive the
national funds. Although states have leeway in deciding how some categorical grants
can be spent for programs such as highway construction, the national government
often attaches strings to the overall category. Categorical grants involve the largest
amount of federal support, but often require the states to match some percentage of
each national dollar.
bLOCK GRANTS Block grants are made for more generalized governmental func-
tions such as public assistance, health services, child care, or community develop-
ment. By definition, these blocks of funding are provided with very few requirements
attached. States have great flexibility in deciding how to spend block grant dollars, but
unlike programs such as national unemployment insurance that are guaranteed for
everyone who qualifies for them, block grants are limited to specific amounts set by
the national government.
These four types of grants are occasionally combined within a single program area.
Some categorical grants contain formulas, for example, while block grants are generally
restricted to a broad issue such as education and assistance to the poor. As the follow-
ing examples demonstrate, the national government often mixes and matches the grant
types to accomplish its goals:
• The National School Lunch Program is both a categorical and formula grant—
school districts receive funding for each meal served to a qualified student. To
receive the funding the school district must guarantee that the lunches meet U.S.
Department of Agriculture nutrition standards.
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 77 11/19/12 1:44 PM
78
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.4
FOR the People Government’s Greatest Endeavors
At first glance, the national government provides only limited assistance to states and localities to
support public schools and universities. National grants
for education programs such as the No Child Left Behind
Act enacted in the George W. Bush administration and
still in effect is relatively small compared to total state
and local spending, and they often come with signifi-
cant unfunded mandates.
However, much of the national government’s sup-
port for state and local education is hidden from view. In
the 1940s and 1950s, for example, the national govern-
ment gave returning World War II veterans the tuition
to earn college degrees through the GI Bill. These tui-
tion grants, not loans, helped thousands of veterans get
better jobs, purchase homes, and rebuild the economy,
which was suffering from a post-war slump.
Out of 15 million eligible veterans, 8 million went
to college or training programs. In 1947 alone, vet-
erans accounted for nearly half of all college enroll-
ment. According to past research by Congress, every
dollar invested over the life of the program generated
between $5 and $12.50 in tax revenues from veterans
whose college education gave them better jobs and
higher salaries than they otherwise would have had.*
The GI Bill exists to this day, and covers college tui-
tion for veterans of all recent wars, including the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
The national government also provides significant
support to help rebuild public schools, encourage educa-
tional innovations such as charter schools, and support
college students as they work toward their degrees. In
2001, for example, Congress passed the “No Child Left
Behind Act,” which set national math and reading stand-
ards tied to national funding for public schools. The act
remains in effect even though many states have raised
objections to the strict standards.
More recently, the Obama administration launched a
$4.5 billion national competition called “Race to the Top”
to encourage innovative school programs through an
annual competition for billions of dollars in federal funds.
Of the 48 states that entered the competition, 15 states
made the first cut, and Delaware, the District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Tennessee won
grants from $75 million to $700 million.**
The GI Bill, No Child Left Behind Act, and Race to
the Top show how federalism can help all levels of gov-
ernment accomplish broad national goals from home-
land security to disaster relief and educational reform.
Sometimes the national grants can be very large as in
Race to the Top, but even the relatively small amount of
funding that actually reach an individual public school can
motivate significant changes within our federal system.
QUESTIONS
1. What are some of the advantages of national
and local governments working collectively
on problems like education? What are the
disadvantages?
2. Why might state and local governments want
to enter competitions such as Race to the Top
even when the amount of funding at stake is
so small in comparison to what they spend?
3. What kind of federalism is the GI Bill tuition
program? What kind of federalism is Race to
the Top?
Helping States Educate Their Citizens
*Cited by the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change: The Phase III Report, (Government
Printing Office, 2001), footnote 145.
**Information on the competition is available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop
President Obama congratulates graduates after delivering the commencement address for Kalamazoo Central High School, winner of the
2010 Race to the Top High School Commencement Challenge, June 7, 2010.
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 78 11/19/12 1:44 PM
79
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.4
• The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is both a block and
formula grant—states receive funding from the national government based on a
formula that includes a number of need-based variables.
• National research grants from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health or
National Science Foundation are both project and categorical in nature with strict
formulas for allocating the money in making final decisions.
• The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Airport Improvement Program is
both a block and project grant. The FAA takes applications and issues grants for
the broad purpose of planning and developing airports in the United States.
The politics of National Grants
Republicans “have consistently favored fewer strings, less national supervision, and the
delegation of spending discretion to the state and local governments.”37 Democrats
have generally been less supportive of broad discretionary block grants, instead favor-
ing more detailed, federally supervised spending. The Republican-controlled Congress
in the 1990s gave high priority to creating block grants, but it ran into trouble when it
tried to lump together welfare, school lunch and breakfast programs, prenatal nutrition
programs, and child protection programs in one block grant.
The battle over national versus state control of spending tends to be cyclical. As one
scholar of federalism explains, “Complaints about excessive federal control tend to be
followed by proposals to shift more power to state and local governments. Then, when
problems arise in state and local administration—and problems inevitably arise when
any organization tries to administer anything—demands for closer federal supervision
and tighter federal controls follow.”38
The battle for Grants
With so much funding at stake, it is not surprising that state and local government
might engage in aggressive lobbying to win their fair share, especially in setting the
formulas that dictate funding within many grants. Whether by using their connections
The national government’s school lunch program provides basic support for undernourished children,
and is administered by local public school districts under state guidelines. The program is an example of
cooperative federalism.
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 79 11/19/12 1:44 PM
80
The national government collects taxes from everyone, but it doesn’t always spend money in the state where it gets it. Instead, the federal government transfers wealth from state to state. Recipient states pay less in
federal taxes than they receive, while donor states pay more in taxes than they receive back. In 2007, there were
19 donor states and 31 recipient states. The political explanation for who were donor and recipient states is
surprising.
Which States Win and
Lose the Federal Aid Game?
Net Donor:
Between $1
and $5,000
pe r person
Explore on MyPoliSciLab
Who are the
Recipient States?
Concept How do we determine
donor and recipient states? Per person, we
subtract the federal aid dollars sent to a
state from the federal tax dollars paid in a
state. If the result is positive, a state is a
donor state, otherwise it’s a recipient state.
Connection What relationship
exists between politics and whether a state is
a recipient or donor? Recipient states are
most often Republican in national politics,
while donor states tend to be more
Democratic in national politics.
Cause Is there a policy explanation
for which states are recipient states? The
federal government � ghts poverty by
moving money around the country.
Recipient states usually have higher
poverty levels and lower average incomes.
Therefore, they tend to pay less federal tax
than they receive per person.
Investigate Further
SOURCE: Data from United States Internal Revenue Service; Statistical Abstract of the United States 2012;
and U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 2010.
Who pays? DELAWARE, MINNESOTA, NEW JERSEY, and CONNECTICUT
all paid at least $6,000 more in federal taxes per person than they received in federal aid.
15 other states were net donors.
Who receives? ALASKA took in twice the federal money in 2007 that it paid in
taxes. 31 states are recipient states. Of the top six recipient states, four are southern.
Recipient states by party
Recipient states by poverty level
Connecticut
$6,241
Ohio
$49
Georgia
$434
Washington
$773
Wisconsin
$1,000
Delaware
$12,285
Minnesota
$7,431
New Jersey
$6,644
North Carolina
$1,108
California
$1,466
Nevada
$1,616
Arkansas
$1,723
Massachusetts
$2,133
Colorado
$2,176
Nebraska
$2,850
Texas
$2,243
Rhode Island
$2,732
Illinois
$3,640
New York
$4,502
Net Donor:
Over $5,000
Per Person
Net Recipient:
Between $1
and $5,000
per person
Alabama
–$5,130
Hawaii
–$4983
North Dakota
–$4,856
South Dakota
–$4,414
Maine
–$4,221
Montana
–$4,149
Alaska
–$7,448
Mississippi
–$6,765
Virginia
–$6,239
New Mexico
–$7,143
West Virginia
–$5,820
South Carolina
–$3,756
Kentucky
–$3,012
Maryland
–$3,010
Vermont
–$2,854
Louisiana
–$2,180
Arizona
–$1,976
Idaho
–$1,281
Wyoming
–$1,205
Missouri
–$1,190
Iowa
–$1,075
Utah
–$792
Indiana
–$723
Tennessee
–$603
Florida
–$581
Oregon
–$474
Pennsylvania
–$385
Oklahoma
–$376
New Hampshire
–$349
Michigan
–$171
Kansas
–$154
Net Recipient:
Over $5,000
Per Person
69%
63%
53%
Low Average High
78%
63%
41%
18 out of 23 Republican-
voting states (78%) are
recipient states compared to
8 out of the 19 Democratic-
voting states (42%).
9 of 13 states with high
poverty levels are recipient
states (69%), while only 9 of 17
states with low poverty levels
are recipient states (53%).
SWING
INfoGrAPhICS To ComE
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 80 11/19/12 1:44 PM
81
with members of Congress or the president, or by direct lobbying through their state
offices in Washington or their national trade associations, state and local governments
often intervene at several points in the funding process.
First, the specific instructions Congress develops in allocating formula grants
involves often-intricate negotiation. Small changes in the terms—or the weight that
the terms carry—in a given formula can advantage some states and disadvantage oth-
ers. It is now a simple matter for states to analyze various proposed formulas in new
legislation and to calculate how well they will do using each of those the rival formulas.
Second, when a grant program is project-oriented, state and local governments often
employ professional grant writers who know the inside workings of the national grant-
making process and so know how to orient grant applications to make them more
attractive to the officials who review the proposals. And third, state officials generally
prefer (and lobby Congress for) block grants that have fewer restrictions on how the
states can spend the funding to categorical grants that have more restrictions. In tough
financial times when the competition for national grants increases, lobbying becomes
increasingly more common.
Unfunded mandates
Fewer national dollars do not necessarily mean fewer national controls. On the contrary,
the national government has imposed mandates on states and local governments, often
without providing national funds. State and local officials complained about this, and their
protests were effective. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 was championed
by then-House Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich as part of the GOP’s Contract with
America. The act was considered part of what commentators called the “Newt Federalism.”
The law requires Congress to evaluate the impact of unfunded mandates and
imposes mild constraints on Congress itself. A congressional committee that approves
any legislation containing a national mandate must draw attention to the mandate in
its report and describe its cost to state and local governments. If the committee intends
any mandate to be partially unfunded, it must explain why it is appropriate for state
and local governments to pay for it.
At least during its first 15 years, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act has been
mostly successful in restraining mandates.39 According to the National Conference of
State Legislatures, the national government has enacted only 11 laws since 1995 that
impose unfunded mandates. Three of these unfunded mandates involved increases in
the minimum wage that apply to all state and local employees.40
The Politics of Federalism
Evaluate the current relationship between the national and state governments and the
future challenges for federalism.
2.5
he formal structures of our federal system have not changed much since
1787, but the political realities, especially during the past half-century, have
greatly altered the way federalism works. To understand these changes,
we need to look at some of the trends that continue to fuel the debate
about the meaning of federalism.
The Growth of National Government
Throughout the past two centuries, power has accrued to the national government. As
the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations observed in a 1981 report,
“No one planned the growth, but everyone played a part in it.”41
T
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.4
2.3
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 81 11/19/12 1:44 PM
82
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.5
BY the People
Governments and other organizations produce enor-mous amounts of information every year on how
states raise and spend money, where people live, and
even how they travel, eat, and spend their free time.
However, as the amount of information has
expanded rapidly over the decade, new organizations
have become engaged in helping citizens “mash-up”
the data to reveal trends, ratings, and rankings in how
their own states compare with other states. Using what
some experts call “data-scraping” computer programs,
these organizations allow citizens to track the issues and
problems that matter most to them, while exploring pos-
sible causes and effects along the way. In doing so, they
can keep track of what their governments are doing to
encourage or discourage particular behaviors and make
informed judgments about how to solve public problems.
Datamasher.org is one of the new Web sites dedi-
cated to helping advance citizen knowledge. With hun-
dreds of information sources to work with, you are free to
search for patterns in topics like the number of fast-food
restaurants and the level of obesity in your state. The
question in this specific mash-up is whether the number
of these restaurants somehow relates to obesity.
In some states such as Colorado, the ratio of res-
taurants to obesity is relatively low, compared with
much higher levels in other states such as Kansas.
Recognizing that correlation is not causation, the mash-
up does not prove that higher obesity leads to more
fast-food restaurants, or vice versa. But, mash-up
provides an interesting way of thinking about whether
some trends are related to each other in your state and
suggests questions deserving more rigorous investiga-
tion. Simply asked, are there some conditions that lead
to a stronger relationship between the two measures in
Kansas than its next-door neighbor Colorado?
Datamasher.org also allows you to create your own
mash-ups built on specific questions you might have.
What is the relationship between the divorce rate and
high school graduation rate? What is the relationship
between smoking and cancer? What is the relationship
between a high SAT score and having a solar panel on
your house? These mash-ups produce maps and tables
that show what is happening in your state, and sug-
gest many ideas for moving your state up or down the
rankings.
QUESTIONS
1. How could keeping track of statistics about
your state be a way to hold government
accountable for what it does?
2. Is there too much information now available
on what governments do and how problems
relate to each other? Are rankings of states a
good way to improve the way governments
operate and make decisions?
3. What are the risks of using data mash-ups to
make a case for government action?
Making a Difference
Do a Data Mash-up on Your State
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 82 11/19/12 1:44 PM
83
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.5
This shift occurred for a variety of reasons. One is that many of our problems have
become national in scope. Much that was local in 1789, in 1860, or in 1930 is now
national, even global. State governments could supervise the relationships between
small merchants and their few employees, for instance, but only the national gov-
ernment can supervise relationships between multinational corporations and their
thousands of worldwide employees, many of whom are organized in national unions.
As the economy grew rapidly during the early nineteenth century, powerful
interests made demands on the national government. Business groups called on the
government for aid in the form of tariffs, a national banking system, subsidies to
railroads and the merchant marine, and uniform rules on the environment. And com-
panies such as automobile makers that sell their products in all states typically prefer
one national set of regulations rather than a different set in every state. Farmers learned
that the national government could give more aid than the states, and they too began to
demand help. By the beginning of the twentieth century, urban groups in general and
organized labor in particular were pressing their claims. Big business, big agriculture,
and big labor all added up to big government.
The growth of the national economy and the creation of national transportation
and communications networks altered people’s attitudes toward the national govern-
ment. Before the Civil War, citizens saw the national government as a distant, even
foreign, entity. Today, in part because of television and the Internet, most people know
more about Washington than they know about their state capitals, and they know more
about the president and their national legislators than about their governor, their state
legislators, or even the local officials who run their cities and schools. Voter turnout in
local elections is generally lower than in state elections and lower in state elections than
in presidential elections.
The Great Depression of the 1930s stimulated extensive national action on wel-
fare, unemployment, and farm surpluses. World War II brought federal regulation of
wages, prices, and employment, as well as national efforts to allocate resources, train
personnel, and support engineering and inventions. After the war, the national govern-
ment helped veterans obtain college degrees and inaugurated a vast system of support
for university research. The United States became the most powerful leader of the free
world, maintaining substantial military forces even in times of peace.
Although economic and social conditions created many of the pressures for
expanding the national government, so did political claims. Once established, federal
programs generate groups with vested interests in promoting, defending, and expand-
ing them. Associations are formed and alliances are made. “In a word, the growth
of government has created a constituency of, by, and for government.”42 The national
budget can become a negative issue for Congress and the president if it grows too large,
however. In 2011–2012, for example, Congress and the president adopted deep cuts in
federal aid to the states in an effort to reduce the federal deficit. The cuts were needed
to reassure financial markets that the United States was making progress to reduce its
rapidly increasing debt.
The politics of federalism are changing, and Congress is being pressured to reduce
the size and scope of national programs, while dealing with the demands for home-
land security. Meanwhile, the cost of entitlement programs such as Social Security and
Medicare is rising because there are more older people with chronic health conditions,
and they are living longer. These programs have widespread public support: to cut them
is politically risky. “With all other options disappearing, it is politically tempting to
finance tax cuts by turning over to the states many of the social programs…that have
become the responsibility of the national government.”43
The Future of Federalism
During recent decades, state governments have undergone a major transformation.
Most have improved their governmental structures, taken on greater roles in funding
education and welfare, launched programs to help distressed cities, expanded their tax
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 83 11/19/12 1:44 PM
84
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.5
bases by allowing citizens to deduct their state and local taxes from the national income
tax, and assumed greater roles in maintaining homeland security and in fighting
corporate corruption.
After the civil rights revolution of the 1960s, segregationists feared that national
officials would work for racial integration. Thus, they praised local government,
emphasized the dangers of centralization, and argued that the protection of civil
rights was not a proper function of the national government. As one political scientist
observed, “Federalism has a dark history to overcome. For nearly 200 years, states’ rights
have been asserted to protect slavery, segregation, and discrimination.”44
Today, the politics of federalism, even with respect to civil rights, is more
complicated than in the past. The national government is not necessarily more
sympathetic to the claims of minorities than state or city governments are. Rulings on
same-sex marriages and “civil unions” by state courts interpreting their state constitu-
tions have extended more protection for these rights than has the Supreme Court’s
interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Other states, however, are passing legislation
that would eliminate such protections, and opponents are pressing for a constitutional
amendment to bar same-sex marriages.
The national government is not likely to retreat to a more passive role. Indeed,
international terrorism, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and rising deficits have sub-
stantially altered the underlying economic and social conditions that generated the
demand for federal action. In addition to such traditional challenges as helping peo-
ple find jobs and preventing inflation and depressions—which still require national
action—combating terrorism and surviving in a global economy based on the informa-
tion explosion, e-commerce, and advancing technologies have added countless new
issues to the national agenda.
Most American citizens have strong attachments to the Constitution’s federal sys-
tem measured broadly to mean all levels of government. However, they remain highly
critical of the politicians who run government and are often angry at the stalemates
in their national, state, and local legislatures. Although Americans still trust their state
and local governments more than the national government in Washington, D.C., they
are increasingly reluctant to give their states and localities a ringing endorsement.
Federalism can be a source of great reward for the nation, especially when it allows
states to lead the nation in creating new programs to address problems such as poverty,
global warming, and health care access. If the people cannot move the national govern-
ment toward action, they can always push their state and local governments. By giving
them different leverage points to make a difference, the Constitution guarantees that
government is by the people.
Federalism can also be a source of enormous frustration, especially when national
and state governments disagree on basic issues such as civil rights and liberties. This
is when the people need to step forward not as citizens of their states but as citizens
of the nation as a whole. Even as they influence their state and local governments, the
people must understand they have a national voice that often needs to be heard.
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 84 11/19/12 1:44 PM
85
Defining Federalism
Review the Chapter Listen to Chapter 2 on MyPoliSciLab
A federal system is one in which the constitution divides
powers between the central government and lower-level gov-
ernments such as states or provinces. But, over time, there has
been support for different balances between state and govern-
ment power such as the shift from dual federalism to marble
cake federalism. The federal system in the United States does
protect us from tyranny, permit local variation in policy, and
encourage experimentation, but it comes at the cost of greater
complexity, conflict, and difficulty in determining exactly
which level of government is responsible for providing which
goods and services that citizens might demand.
Interpret the definitions of federalism, and assess the
advantages and disadvantages of the American system
of federalism, p. 59.
2.1
The Constitution gives three types of powers to the national
and state governments: delegated powers to the national gov-
ernment, reserve powers for the states, and concurrent pow-
ers that the national and state governments share. Beyond
delegated powers, the national government also has implied
powers under the necessary and proper clause and inherent
powers during periods of war and national crisis.
The national government’s power over the states stems
primarily from several constitutional pillars: the national
supremacy clause, the war powers, its powers to regulate
commerce among the states to tax and spend, and its power
to do what Congress thinks is necessary and proper to pro-
mote the general welfare and to provide for the common
defense. These constitutional pillars have permitted tremen-
dous expansion of the functions of the national government.
The Constitutional Structure of
American Federalism
Differentiate the powers the Constitution provides to
national and state governments, p. 66.2.2
The National Courts and
Federalism
Assess the role of the national courts in defining the
relationship between the national and state govern-
ments, and evaluate the positions of decentralists and
centralists, p. 72.
2.3
in decisions such as Gibbons v. Ogden and McCulloch v.
Maryland, asserted the power of the national government
over the states and promoted a national economic common
market. These decisions also reinforced the supremacy of the
national government over the states.
Today, debates about federalism are less often about its
constitutional structure than about whether action should
come from the national or the state and local levels. Recent
Supreme Court decisions favor a decentralist position and
signal shifts in the Court’s interpretation of the constitu-
tional nature of our federal system.
The major instruments of national intervention in state pro-
grams have been various kinds of financial grants-in-aid, of
which the most prominent are categorical grants, formula
grants, project grants, and block grants. The national govern-
ment also imposes federal mandates and controls activities of
state and local governments by other means.
The National Budget as a Tool
of Federalism
Analyze the budget as a tool of federalism, and evaluate
its impact on state and local governments, p. 76.
2.4
The national government has grown dramatically through-
out the past 200 years. Its budget dwarfs many state budgets
combined. As it has grown, the national government has
asked states to do more on its behalf. States have pressed
back against the national government, however, and continue
to fight for their authority to use powers that are reserved for
them under the Constitution.
The Politics of Federalism
Evaluate the current relationship between the national
and state governments and the future challenges for
federalism, p. 81.
2.5
Watch the Video at myanthrolab
Study and Review the Pre-Test and Flashcards at myanthrolab
Read the Document at myanthrolab
Read the
Document The
Title of the Document
Goes Here at myanthrolab
View the Image at myanthrolab
Map the Concepts at myanthrolab
Explore the Concept at myanthrolab
Simulate the Experiment at myanthrolab
Listen to the Audio File at myanthrolab
Read and Listen to Chapter 2 at myanthrolab
Read the Document at myanthrolab
Sample Document Title Text
Map the Concepts at myanthrolab
Sample Concept Title Text
Margin sample
The national courts umpire the division of power between
the national and state governments. The Marshall Court,
On MyPoliSciLab
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 85 11/19/12 1:44 PM
86
federalism, p. 59
unitary system, p. 61
confederation, p. 61
delegated (express) powers, p. 66
implied powers, p. 66
necessary and proper clause, p. 66
inherent powers, p. 66
supremacy clause, p. 67
commerce clause, p. 67
federal mandate, p. 68
reserve powers, p. 68
concurrent powers, p. 68
full faith and credit clause, p. 71
extradition, p. 71
interstate compact, p. 71
national supremacy, p. 72
preemption, p. 73
centralists, p. 74
decentralists, p. 74
states’ rights, p. 75
devolution revolution, p. 76
Learn the Terms Study and Review the Flashcards
Watch the Video at myanthrolab
Study and Review the Pre-Test and Flashcards at myanthrolab
Read the Document at myanthrolab
Read the
Document The
Title of the Document
Goes Here at myanthrolab
View the Image at myanthrolab
Map the Concepts at myanthrolab
Explore the Concept at myanthrolab
Simulate the Experiment at myanthrolab
Listen to the Audio File at myanthrolab
Read and Listen to Chapter 2 at myanthrolab
Read the Document at myanthrolab
Sample Document Title Text
Map the Concepts at myanthrolab
Sample Concept Title Text
Margin sample
mULTIpLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
2.1 Interpret the definitions of federalism, and assess the
advantages and disadvantages of the American system of
federalism.
Canada has a central government in Ottawa, the nation’s
capital, along with ten provinces and three territories, each
of which has its own government. According to Canada’s
constitution, both the provinces and the central government
have powers to tax and regulate individual citizens. Which
type of government best describes Canada?
a. A unitary state
b. A cooperative federalist state
c. A confederation
d. A territorial union
e. A competitive federalist state
2.2 Differentiate the powers the Constitution provides to
national and state governments.
Determine whether the following powers are delegated to
the national government, reserved for the states, or shared
by both:
a. Power to establish courts
b. Power to tax citizens and businesses
c. Power to regulate interstate commerce
d. Power to oversee primary and elementary education
e. Power to make war
2.3 Assess the role of the national courts in defining the
relationship between the national and state governments,
and evaluate the positions of decentralists and centralists.
Which of the following arguments support the decentralist
case?
a. The Constitution is a compact among sovereign states.
b. The national government is an agent of the states.
c. The national government should not interfere with
activities reserved to the states.
d. State governments reflect the people’s wishes more
accurately than the national government.
e. All of the above
Test Yourself Study and Review the Practice Tests
Watch the Video at myanthrolab
Study and Review the Pre-Test and Flashcards at myanthrolab
Read the Document at myanthrolab
Read the
Document The
Title of the Document
Goes Here at myanthrolab
View the Image at myanthrolab
Map the Concepts at myanthrolab
Explore the Concept at myanthrolab
Simulate the Experiment at myanthrolab
Listen to the Audio File at myanthrolab
Read and Listen to Chapter 2 at myanthrolab
Read the Document at myanthrolab
Sample Document Title Text
Map the Concepts at myanthrolab
Sample Concept Title Text
Margin sample
2.4 Analyze the budget as a tool of federalism, and
evaluate its impact on state and local governments.
Which of the following are examples of a federal mandate:
a. The New York state legislature passes a law requiring
all New York school teachers to spend ten hours a year
learning new teaching techniques.
b. Congress passes a law requiring all coal plants in the
United States to reduce their carbon emissions by
30 percent by 2015.
c. The Supreme Court upholds a law requiring teenage
women to get parental permission before having an
abortion.
d. The Federal Emergency Management Agency sends
funds from the national government to help clean up
after a tornado.
e. Congress passes an increase in the minimum wage that
applies to all state and local employees.
2.5 Evaluate the current relationship between the
national and state governments and the future challenges
for federalism.
What is a likely future for federalism?
a. Congress may reduce the size of national programs.
b. Homeland security will be turned over to the states.
c. There will be many new issues on the national agenda.
d. The national government will become more passive.
e. The decentralist position will prevail.
ESSAy QUESTION
In a few sentences, discuss the “constitutional
counterrevolution” instigated by Chief Justice William
Rehnquist and continued by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Why is preemption such a powerful tool for influencing
state governments? Use this answer to write an essay
appraising whether the balance of governmental power
should lean more toward either the national government or
the states.
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 86 11/19/12 1:44 PM
87
IN THE LIbRARy
Samuel H. Beer, To Make a Nation: The Rediscovery of American
Federalism (Harvard University Press, 1993).
Michael Burgess, Comparative Federalism Theory and Practice
(Routledge, 2006).
Center For The Study Of Federalism, The Federalism Report
(published quarterly by Temple University; this publication
notes research, books and articles, and scholarly conferences).
Center For The Study Of Federalism, Publius: The Journal of
Federalism (published quarterly by Temple University; one
issue each year is an “Annual Review of the State of American
Federalism”; Web site is www.lafayette.edu/˜publius).
Timothy J. Conlan, From New Federalism to Devolution: Twenty-
Five Years of Intergovernmental Reforms (Brookings Institution
Press, 1998).
Daniel J. Elazar And John Kincaid, eds., The Covenant Connection:
From Federal Theology to Modern Federalism (Lexington Books,
2000).
Allison L. Lacroix The Ideological Origins of American Federalism
(Harvard University Press, 2010).
John D. Nugent Safeguarding Federalism: How States Protect Their
Interests in National Policymaking (University of Oklahoma
Press, 2009).
Pietro Nivola, Tense Commandments: Federal Prescriptions and City
Problems (Brookings Institution Press, 2002).
Explore Further
John T. Noonan, Narrowing the Nation’s Power: The Supreme Court
Sides with the States (University of California Press, 2002).
William H. Riker, The Development of American Federalism
(Academic Press, 1987).
Denise Scheberle, Federalism and Environmental Policy: Trust and the
Politics of Implementation (Georgetown University Press, 2004).
Kevin Smith, ed., State and Local Government, 2008–2009
(CQ Press, 2008).
Carl Van Horn, ed., The State of the States, 4th ed. (CQ Press, 2008).
ON THE wEb
www.ncsl.org
The top source of information on pending legislative action and
policy controversy in the states.
www.nga.org
The primary Web site for the state governors.
www.USASpending.gov
The national government’s summary of all spending activity.
Includes charts and graphs on overall spending trends and
amounts of funding dedicated to state governments.
www.governing.com
The Web site for the major national magazine on state and local
governments.
M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 87 11/19/12 1:44 PM
