Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edits by 2601:244:4C7F:F190:A4DB:351E:E16F:EBDB (talk) (HG) (3.4.10) |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Add: pmc, pmid. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by BrownHairedGirl | Linked from User:BrownHairedGirl/Articles_with_bare_links | #UCB_webform_linked 1179/2167 |
||
Line 125:
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 criticized -- however, this was through a coalition that included state governments as very active participants who worked closely in drafting and implementation.<ref name=":5" /> According to a 2010 article by Thomas L. Gais of the Rockefeller Institute, the Obama administration had been engaged with states more heavily than any administration since the 1960s, was more reliant than ever on state action, and states had the highest proportion of government employees compared to the federal government in history up to that point. Gais labelled this "assertive federalism".<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|title=Federalism During the Obama Administration|url=https://rockinst.org/issue-area/federalism-obama-administration/|access-date=2021-02-06|website=Rockefeller Institute of Government|language=en}}</ref> The [[cannabis policy of the Barack Obama administration]] was an easing of federal enforcement, granting more rights to the states in determining the legality of marijuana.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2018-01-04|title=Sessions terminates US policy that let legal pot flourish|url=https://apnews.com/article/19f6bfec15a74733b40eaf0ff9162bfa|access-date=2021-02-06|website=AP NEWS}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bulman-Pozen|first1=Jessica|last2=Metzger|first2=Gillian E.|date=2016-07-01|title=The President and the States: Patterns of Contestation and Collaboration under Obama|url=https://academic.oup.com/publius/article/46/3/308/1752741|journal=Publius: The Journal of Federalism|language=en|volume=46|issue=3|pages=308–336|doi=10.1093/publius/pjw008|issn=0048-5950|doi-access=free}}</ref>
Federalism under [[Donald Trump]] (2017-2021) was more complicated. In 2020, the executive branch of the federal government failed to act during the [[COVID-19 pandemic in the United States|coronavirus pandemic]], despite the federal government traditionally dealing with matters of national importance, including natural disasters or virus outbreaks.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Yamey|first1=Gavin|date=24 April 2020|title=Donald Trump: a political determinant of covid-19|url=https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1643|journal=The BMJ|volume=369|pages=m1643|doi=10.1136/bmj.m1643|pmid=32332028|access-date=14 December 2020|doi-access=free|s2cid=216129911}}</ref><ref name=":8" /> This would suggest that Trump attempted to weaken the role of the federal government, although he also attempted to override state powers or exercise powers that the Constitution did not grant the presidency.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Selin|first=Jennifer|title=Trump versus the states: What federalism means for the coronavirus response|url=http://theconversation.com/trump-versus-the-states-what-federalism-means-for-the-coronavirus-response-136361|access-date=2021-02-06|website=The Conversation|language=en}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last1=Goelzhauser|first1=Greg|last2=Konisky|first2=David M.|date=2020-07-01|title=The State of American Federalism 2019–2020: Polarized and Punitive Intergovernmental Relations|url=https://academic.oup.com/publius/article/50/3/311/5870265|journal=Publius: The Journal of Federalism|language=en|volume=50|issue=3|pages=311–343|doi=10.1093/publius/pjaa021|pmid=34191881|pmc=7454864|issn=0048-5950|doi-access=free}}</ref> Punitive federalism, or the punishment of states and local areas by the federal government, became an issue during the Trump administration.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|date=2020-12-11|title=Pandemic Lockdown Battles Offer Glimpses of Political Conflicts to Come|url=https://reason.com/2020/12/11/pandemic-lockdown-battles-offer-glimpses-of-political-conflicts-to-come/|access-date=2021-02-06|website=Reason.com|language=en-US}}</ref> Goelzhauser and Konisky state that punitive federalism is exemplified most by the Trump administration's interference with California through the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|EPA]] in 2018, and the withholding of disaster relief from Puerto Rico. They further state that "the pandemic has brought on, in addition to immense human suffering, the federalism event of the century".<ref name=":3" /> Another issue was Trump's response to the Black Lives Matter protests, in which he took a more confrontational stance, including [[2020 deployment of federal forces in the United States|deploying federal troops and agents to protests]], despite several states opposing this measure and the action being condemned for possible unconstitutionality.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Were Portland Protesters 'Kidnapped' by Federal Officers in Unmarked Vans?|url=https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/feds-unmarked-vans-portland/|access-date=2021-02-06|website=Snopes.com|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-07-20|title=Federal agents, local streets: A 'red flag' in Oregon|url=https://apnews.com/article/597b63c1ddf52ef57a5eccfaa67b8a94|access-date=2021-02-06|website=AP NEWS}}</ref> According to Thompson, Wong, and Rabe, "Trump [was] particularly aggressive in the use of executive power, or the 'administrative presidency', to pursue his goals, including executive orders and regulatory changes." However, "the forces of federalism, especially state attorneys general, governors, and legislatures, have often undercut Trump’s executive initiatives and reduced their impact".<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Thompson|first1=Frank|last2=Wong|first2=Kenneth|last3=Rabe|first3=Barry|date=2019-11-04|title=Trump, the Administrative Presidency, and Federalism|url=https://www.brookings.edu/book/trump-the-administrative-presidency-and-federalism/|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2021-02-06|website=Brookings|language=en-US}}</ref>
==See also==
| |||