Content deleted Content added
→References and further reading: Added Article III case law navbox |
Maxeto0910 (talk | contribs) m consistent writing style throughout the article Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Use American English|date = March 2019}}▼
{{Short description|Division of powers between national, state, tribal and local governments}}
{{Use mdy dates|date = March 2019}}▼
{{Multiple issues|
{{more citations needed|date=May 2016}}
{{Original research|date=February 2021}}
}}
▲{{Use American English|date = March 2019}}
▲{{Use mdy dates|date = March 2019}}
{{US Constitution article series}}
{{United States constitutional law}}
{{Conservatism US|principles}}
== Early federalism ==
[[Federalism]] is a form of political organization that seeks to distinguish states and unites them,
The movement for federalism was greatly strengthened by the reaction to [[Shays' Rebellion]] of 1786–1787, which was an armed uprising of [[Yeoman#United States|yeoman farmers]] in western [[Massachusetts]]. The rebellion was fueled by a poor economy that was created, in part, by the inability of the
On May
Preceding examples, such as in the [[Virginia Declaration of Rights]], influenced the delegates whilst framing their ideas of Federal bicameral legislature ([[United States Congress]]), balanced representation of small and large states ([[Great Compromise]]), and [[checks and balances]] structures.<ref name= "Liberty Fund">{{cite web |url=https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1791-us-bill-of-rights-1st-10-amendments-with-commentary#targetText=The%20first%20ten%20amendments%20were,as%20the%20Bill%20of%20Rights
Madison later wrote in [[Federalist No. 10]] on his support for a federal government, "the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-10 |title=Full Text of The Federalist Papers |publisher=Library of Congress |access-date=March 25, 2022}}</ref>
The convention had begun altering its original plan but then decided to abandon continued efforts of emendation, and officially set about constructing a new [[Constitution of the United States]]. Because [[George Washington]] lent his prestige to the Constitution and because of the ingenuity and organizational skills of its proponents, the Constitution was ratified in all states
The most forceful defense of the new Constitution was ''[[The Federalist Papers]]'', a compilation of 85 anonymous essays published in New York City to convince the people of the state to vote for ratification. These articles, written by [[Alexander Hamilton]] and [[James Madison]], with some contributed by [[John Jay]], examined the benefits of the new, proposed Constitution, and analyzed the political theory and function behind the various articles of the Constitution. ''The Federalist Papers'' remain one of the most important sets of documents in American history and political science.<ref name="Citycyclopedia">Jackson, Kenneth T. ''The Encyclopedia of New York City'': The New York Historical Society; Yale University Press; 1995. p. 194.</ref>
Those opposed to the new Constitution became known as the [[Anti-Federalism|Anti-Federalists]]. They generally were local rather than cosmopolitan in perspective, oriented to plantations and farms rather than commerce or finance, and wanted strong state governments and a weak national government. According to political scientist James Wilson, the
The Anti-Federalist critique soon centered on the absence of a [[bill of rights]], which Federalists in the ratifying conventions promised to provide. Washington and Madison had personally pledged to consider amendments, realizing that they would be necessary to reduce pressure for a second constitutional convention that might drastically alter and weaken the new federal government. Madison proposed amendments that gave more rights to individuals than to states, which led to criticisms of diversion by Anti-Federalists.<ref name=":2" />
The outgoing [[Congress of the Confederation]] scheduled elections for the new government, and set March 4, 1789 as the date that the new government would take power.
In 1789, Congress submitted twelve articles of amendment to the states. Ten of these articles, written by congressional committees, achieved passage on December 15, 1791 and became the [[United States Bill of Rights]].<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|last=|first=|last2=|first2=|last3=|first3=|last4=|first4=|date=|title=Demand for a Bill of Rights - Creating the United States {{!}} Exhibitions - Library of Congress|url=https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/demand-for-a-bill-of-rights.html|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2021-01-11|website=www.loc.gov|publisher=Library of Congress}}</ref> The [[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Tenth Amendment]] set the guidelines for federalism in the United States.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Tenth Amendment|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment|access-date=2021-01-11|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en}}</ref>▼
▲In 1789, Congress submitted twelve articles of amendment to the states. Ten of these articles, written by congressional committees, achieved passage on December 15, 1791 and became the [[United States Bill of Rights]].<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|last=|first=|last2=|first2=|last3=|first3=|last4=|first4=|date=|title=Demand for a Bill of Rights - Creating the United States {{!}} Exhibitions - Library of Congress|url=https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/demand-for-a-bill-of-rights.html
=== Federalist Party ===
Line 36 ⟶ 39:
After the first federalist movement achieved its aims in promoting the Constitution, an official Federalist Party emerged with slightly different aims. This one was based on the policies of Alexander Hamilton and his allies for a stronger national government, a [[Loose constructionism|loose construction]] of the Constitution, and a mercantile (rather than agricultural) economy. As time progressed, the factions which adhered to these policies organized themselves into the nation's first political party, the Federalist Party, and the movement's focus and fortunes began to track those of the party it spawned.
While the Federalist movement of the 1780s and the Federalist Party were distinct entities, they were related in more than just a common name. The Jeffersonian or [[Democratic-Republican Party]], the opposition to the Federalist Party, emphasized the fear that a strong national government was a threat to the liberties of the people. They stressed that the [[History of the United States public debt|national debt]] created by the new government would bankrupt the country, and that federal bondholders were paid through taxes collected from honest farmers and workingmen. These themes resonated with the Anti-Federalists, the opposition to the Federalist movement of the 1780s. As Norman Risjord has documented for Virginia, of the supporters of the Constitution in 1788, 69% joined the Federalist party, while nearly all (94%) of the opponents joined the Republicans. 71% of [[Thomas Jefferson]]'s supporters in Virginia were former anti-federalists who continued to fear centralized government, while only 29% had been proponents of the Constitution a few years before. In short, nearly all of the opponents of the Federalist movement became opponents of the Federalist Party.{{Citation needed|date=February 2021}} However, James Madison, who was one of the strongest proponents of the Constitution and a member of the first federalist movement, became a Jeffersonian.<ref>{{Cite web|title=1784 to 1807 {{!}} James Madison Timeline {{!}} Articles and Essays {{!}} James Madison Papers, 1723-1859 {{!}} Digital Collections {{!}} Library of Congress|url=https://www.loc.gov/collections/james-madison-papers/articles-and-essays/james-madison-timeline-1751-to-1836/1784-to-1807/|access-date=2021-02-06|website=Library of Congress
The movement reached its zenith with the election of [[John Adams]], an overtly Federalist President. However, with the defeat of Adams in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1800|election of 1800]] and the [[Burr–Hamilton duel|death of Hamilton]], the Federalist Party began a long decline from which it never recovered. What finally finished off the Federalist party was the [[Hartford Convention]] of 1814, in which five [[New England]] states gathered to discuss several constitutional amendments necessary to protect New England's interests in regard to the blockade of their ports by the British during the [[War of 1812]]. The threat of [[Secession in the United States|secession]] also was proposed during these secret meetings. Three delegates were sent to Washington, DC to negotiate New England's terms only to discover the signing of the [[Treaty of Ghent]], ending the war with the British.<ref>[http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/warof1812/section8.rhtml War of 1812] Sparknotes.com</ref> Across the nation, Republicans used the great victory at New Orleans to ridicule the Federalists as cowards or defeatists. The Federalists were thereafter associated with the disloyalty and parochialism of the Hartford Convention and destroyed as a political force.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Stoltz|first1=Joseph F.|year=2012|title="It Taught our Enemies a Lesson:" the Battle of New Orleans and the Republican Destruction of the Federalist Party|journal=Tennessee Historical Quarterly|volume=71|issue=2|pages=112–127|jstor=42628249}}</ref>
Line 42 ⟶ 45:
==Under the Marshall Court==
{{see also|John Marshall}}
The United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall played an important role in defining the power of the federal and state governments during the early 19th century. As the U.S. Constitution does not specifically define many dividing lines between the layers of government, the Supreme Court settled the issue in New York. The question was answered particularly in the cases, ''[[McCulloch v. Maryland]]'', in which the court unanimously found that the states could not tax a federal institution that was deemed legitimate and appropriate, ''[[Gibbons v. Ogden]]'', in which Congress was confirmed control of interstate commerce under the commerce clause instead of the states, and ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'', which broadly expanded the power of the national government.<ref>{{Cite web|title=
==Dual federalism==
{{main|Dual federalism}}
Despite Chief Justice Marshall's strong push for the federal government, the court of his successor, [[Roger B. Taney]] (1835–1864), decided cases that favored equally strong national and state governments. The basic philosophy during this time was that the U.S. Government ought to be limited to its [[enumerated powers]] and that all others belonged to the states. Any powers that were not granted to the U. S. Government by the Constitution were handed over to the states through the Tenth Amendment.
==Between dual federalism and the New Deal==
The ratification of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] in 1868 marked a significant transfer of authority from state governments to the federal government, declaring United States citizenship paramount to state citizenship. Over time, the application of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states strengthened the federal government’s power to protect against state intrusions upon individual rights.<ref
Still, in the immediate aftermath of the Taney court and the rise of [[Dual federalism]], the division of labor between federal, state, and local governments was relatively unchanged for over a century. Political scientist [[Theodore J. Lowi]] summarized the system in place during those years in ''The End of the Republican Era''<ref>Lowi, T. ''The End of the Republican Era'' ({{ISBN|0-8061-2887-9}}), [[University of Oklahoma]] Press, 1995–2006. p. 6.</ref>
This lack of change is nowhere more apparent than in Supreme Court rulings that addressed federalism against the backdrop of the laissez-faire, pro-business Gilded Age. In ''United States v. E.C. Knight Co.'' (1895), the Supreme Court continued along the path of promoting dual federalism in striking down a provision of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In an 8–1 decision, the Court ruled that Congress lacked the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate monopolies by adopting a limited interpretation of interstate commerce, a win for states’ rights. In 1918, a 5–4 majority ruled similarly in ''[[Hammer v. Dagenhart]],'' a challenge against the constitutionality of the Federal Child Labor Act of 1915. However, by 1941, this ruling was reversed in ''United States v. Darby Lumber Company''. The Court delivered another victory for dual federalism in ''[[Coyle v. Smith]]'' (1911), where Oklahoma’s effort to relocate their capital to Oklahoma City was halted. The state agreed to keep the capital in Guthrie until at least 1913 as part of the terms of their Enabling Act of 1906, which outlined the conditions for Oklahoma’s acceptance into the Union as a state. These cases illustrate the Supreme Court’s consistent willingness to rule in favor of states’ rights until ''[[NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.|National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation]]'' (1937), which ushered in a new era of cooperative federalism for the courts.<ref
Despite the Supreme Court’s stubbornness on guarding states’ rights, much of the modern federal apparatus owes its origins to changes that occurred during the period between 1861 and 1933. While banks had long been incorporated and regulated by the states, the [[National Bank Act]]s of 1863 and 1864 saw Congress establish a network of national banks that had their reserve requirements set by officials in Washington. During World War I, a system of federal banks devoted to aiding farmers was established, and a network of federal banks designed to promote homeownership came into existence in the last year of [[Herbert Hoover]]'s administration. Congress used its power over interstate commerce to regulate the rates of interstate (and eventually intrastate) railroads and even regulated their stock issues and labor relations, going so far as to enact a law regulating pay rates for railroad workers on the eve of World War I. During the 1920s, Congress enacted laws bestowing collective bargaining rights on employees of interstate railroads and some observers dared to predict it would eventually bestow collective bargaining rights on persons working in all industries. Congress also used the commerce power to enact morals legislation, such as the [[Mann Act]] of 1907 barring the transfer of women across state lines for immoral purposes, even as the commerce power remained limited to interstate transportation—it did not extend to what were viewed as intrastate activities such as manufacturing and mining.
Line 59 ⟶ 62:
As early as 1913, there was talk of regulating stock exchanges, and the Capital Issues Committee formed to control access to credit during World War I recommended federal regulation of all stock issues and exchanges shortly before it ceased operating in 1921. With the [[Morrill Land-Grant Acts]] Congress used land sale revenues to make grants to the states for colleges during the Civil War on the theory that land sale revenues could be devoted to subjects beyond those listed in [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 8: Powers of Congress|Article I, Section 8]] of the Constitution. On several occasions during the 1880s, one house of Congress or the other passed bills providing land sale revenues to the states for the purpose of aiding primary schools. During the first years of the twentieth century, the endeavors funded with federal grants multiplied, and Congress began using general revenues to fund them—thus utilizing the [[general welfare clause]]'s broad spending power, even though it had been discredited for almost a century (Hamilton's view that a broad spending power could be derived from the clause had been all but abandoned by 1840).
During Herbert Hoover's administration, grants went to the states for the purpose of funding poor relief. The 1920s saw Washington expand its role in domestic law enforcement. Disaster relief for areas affected by floods or crop failures dated from 1874, and these appropriations began to multiply during the administration of [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913–21). By 1933, the precedents necessary for the federal government to exercise broad regulatory power over all economic activity and spend for any purpose it saw fit were almost all in place. Virtually all that remained was for the will to be mustered in Congress and for the Supreme Court to acquiesce.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Zavodnyik |first=Peter |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AhhlcAAACAAJ&q=zavodnyik |title=The Rise of the Federal Colossus: The Growth of Federal Power from Lincoln to F.D.R. |publisher=ABC-CLIO |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-313-39293-1 |location=Santa Barbara, CA |pages=21–30, 186–93, 213–19, 291–93, 313–27, 363–64, 380–93, 416–19 }}{{Dead link|date=April 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>
{{col-begin}}
Line 109 ⟶ 112:
The national government was forced to cooperate with all levels of government to implement the New Deal policies; local government earned an equal standing with the other layers, as the federal government relied on [[political machine]]s at a city level to bypass [[State legislature (United States)|state legislatures]]. The formerly distinct division of responsibilities between state and national government had been described as a "layer cake," but, with the lines of duty blurred, cooperative federalism was likened to a "marble cake" or a "picket fence." In cooperative federalism, federal funds are distributed through [[grants in aid]] or [[categorical grant]]s which gave the federal government more control over the use of the money.
== New
{{main|New Federalism}}
{{norefs|section|date=November 2023}}
Another movement calling itself "New Federalism" appeared in the late 20th century and early 21st century. Many of the ideas of New Federalism originated with [[Richard Nixon]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Katz|first=Bruce|date=2014-08-11|title=Nixon's New Federalism 45 Years Later|url=https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2014/08/11/nixons-new-federalism-45-years-later/|access-date=2021-08-29|website=Brookings|language=en-US}}</ref> New Federalism, which is characterized by a gradual return of power to the states, was initiated by President [[Ronald Reagan]] (1981–89) with his "devolution revolution" in the early 1980s and lasted until 2001. Previously, the federal government had granted money to the states categorically, limiting the states to use this funding for specific programs. Reagan's administration, however, introduced a practice of giving block grants, freeing state governments to spend the money at their own discretion. An example and the first case of this was ''[[Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority]]'' (SAMTA) (1985). Garcia was a worker for SAMTA and appealed that because SAMTA received federal money, that they had to abide by federal labor regulations. SAMTA argued that they did not because the money received was to be used at their own discretion and did not need to abide by federal statutes because they are locally operated and make decisions about the transit system. This gave more autonomy and power to the states by allowing them to use more discretion, not having to abide by federal regulations.
Under New Federalism, the question that is asked is may the federal government constitutionally command the states to carry out federal policy? For this, the courts use the anti-commandeering principle. "The anti-commandeering doctrine says that the federal government cannot require states or state officials to adopt or enforce federal law." This became the principle by ''[[New York v. United States]]'' (1992). In this case, New York sued the federal government, questioning the authority of
A modern-day application of this rule can be found in ''[[Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association]]'' (2018). New Jersey’s governor attacked the federal government's prohibition on sports gambling. The courts again used the anti-commandeering principle, allowing states to regulate sports gambling at their discretion. This is starting to become a trend because now states are passing laws on issues that are often federally prohibited or heavily regulated by Congress under the commerce clause, as in the areas of medical marijuana (''[[Gonzales v. Raich]]''), [[partial-birth abortion]] (''[[Gonzales v. Carhart]]''), gun possession (''[[United States v. Lopez]]''), federal police powers (''[[United States v. Morrison]]'', which struck down portions of the [[Violence Against Women Act]]), or agriculture (''[[Wickard v. Filburn]]'').
Line 119 ⟶ 123:
===Recent federalism===
The balance between state and federal power has fluctuated in the 21st century. In a 2009 [[Rockefeller Institute of Government|Rockefeller Institute]] report by [[Martha Derthick]], she argues that "the normal tendency of federal-state relations in the United States is toward centralization."<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|title=Bush, Federalism, and Emergency Management|url=https://rockinst.org/issue-area/bush-federalism-emergency-management/|access-date=2021-02-06|website=Rockefeller Institute of Government|language=en}}</ref>
==== Presidency of George W. Bush ====
About the [[Presidency of George W. Bush|Bush administration]] (2001-2009), Derthick stated "conventional federalism has survived the test of an aggressive presidency" in regards to military and emergency action, and further, the Bush administration was "in retrospect, more centralizing than militarizing."<ref name=":7" /> In a 2007 paper in ''[[Publius (journal)|Publius: The Journal of Federalism]]'', Sidney Milkis and Jesse Rhodes argue that "The Republican Party has traditionally stood for 'limited government', but Bush's principal legacy for federalism is centralization of power in the federal government and the executive branch."<ref>{{Cite journal|
==== Presidency of Barack Obama ====
The federal government increased its powers under the presidency of [[Barack Obama]] (2009–2017), and to an extent, the powers of the state governments also grew. In 2011, scholar [[Gillian E. Metzger|Gillian Metzger]] discussed that "national developments entail some preemption and new state burdens. But each also has brought with it significant regulatory and financial opportunities for the states." Metzger points out that the states had increased regulatory responsibilities under [[Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act|Dodd-Frank]], increased responsibilities in implementing and operating federal health care legislation under the [[Affordable Care Act]], and received additional stimulus funding.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last=Metzger|first=Gillian|date=2011-01-01|title=Federalism Under Obama|url=https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/818|journal=Wm. & Mary L. Rev.|volume=53|pages=567}}</ref> Obama took office following the [[Financial crisis of 2007–2008|2007-2008 financial crash]], which called for him to take action to stabilize the economy. In 2009, he subsequently introduced [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act]] (ARRA). This act placed a federal focus on providing stabilizing state and local budgets, financial bailouts, and ensuring jobs were secure.<ref>{{cite web|title=American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/1|access-date=14 December 2020|website=Congress.Gov|publisher=Congress. Gov}}</ref><ref name=":5">{{Cite web|title=Agile Federalism in Times of Crisis|url=https://www.napawash.org/grandchallenges/blog/agile-federalism-in-times-of-crisis|access-date=2021-02-06|website=National Academy Of Public Administration}}</ref> ARRA was seen as a significant exertion of federal power which many conservatives
==== Presidency of Donald Trump ====
Federalism under [[Donald Trump]] (2017-2021) was more complicated. In 2020,
==== Presidency of Joe Biden ====
The federalism of the [[Presidency of Joe Biden|Biden administration]] is an emerging discussion. One federalism topic includes the measures available to the federal government in combatting the COVID-19 pandemic, and the promotion of public health.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Federalism 2021: COVID-19 Mandates {{!}} The Rose Institute of State and Local Government|url=https://roseinstitute.org/federalism-covid-19-mandates/|access-date=2021-08-29|website=roseinstitute.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Why President Biden can't make states vaccinate teachers — or anyone else|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/why-president-biden-can-t-make-states-vaccinate-teachers-or-n1258565|access-date=2021-08-29|website=NBC News|language=en}}</ref>
==See also==
Line 135 ⟶ 145:
==Notes==
{{further|Bibliography of the United States Constitution}}
{{Reflist}}
==References and further reading==
* {{Citation |last=Gerston |first=Larry N. |title=American Federalism: A Concise Introduction |url=https://
* {{Cite journal |last1=Hafer |first1=Catherine |last2=Landa |first2=Dimitri |date=August 2007 |title=Public goods in Federal systems |journal=[[Quarterly Journal of Political Science]] |publisher=Now Publishing Inc. |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=253–275 |citeseerx=10.1.1.485.7813 |doi=10.1561/100.00006001 }} [http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/2784/federalism.PDF Pdf.]
* {{Citation |last=LaCroix |first=Alison L. |title=The Ideological Origins of American Federalism |url=https://
* {{Citation |last=Lowi |first=Theodore |title=The End of the Republican Era |url=https://
* {{Citation |last=Taylor |first=Jeff |author-link=Jeff Taylor (politician) |title=Politics on a Human Scale: The American Tradition of Decentralism |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uVwrAQAAQBAJ |year=2013 |place=
* [[U.S. Constitution]]
* {{Citation |last=Zavodnyik |first=Peter |title=The Rise of the Federal Colossus: The Growth of Federal Power from Lincoln to F.D.R. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AhhlcAAACAAJ&q=zavodnyik |year=2011 |place=
* {{Citation |last=Phelps |first=Richard P. |title=The Malfunction of US Education Policy: Elite Misinformation, Disinformation, and Selfishness |url=https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781475869941/The-Malfunction-of-US-Education-Policy-Elite-Misinformation-Disinformation-and-Selfishness |year=2023 |place=Lanham, Maryland |publisher=Rowman and Littlefield |isbn=978-1-4758-6994-1 }}
{{United States topics}}
{{USArticleIII}}
{{North America topic |Federalism in}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Federalism In The United States}}
| |||