Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: title. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by BrownHairedGirl | Linked from User:BrownHairedGirl/Articles_with_bare_links | #UCB_webform_linked 811/2196 |
|||
Line 1:
{{Use American English|date = March 2019}}▼
{{Short description|Division of powers between national, state, tribal and local governments}}
▲{{Use American English|date = March 2019}}
{{Use mdy dates|date = March 2019}}
{{Multiple issues|
Line 15:
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 federal government to deal effectively with the debt from the [[American Revolutionary War]]. Moreover, the federal government had proven incapable of raising an army to quell the rebellion, so that Massachusetts had been forced to raise its own.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Editors|first=History com|title=Shays' Rebellion|url=https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/shays-rebellion|access-date=2021-02-06|website=HISTORY|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last1=Franklin|first1=Benjamin|last2=Jefferson|first2=Thomas|last3=Jay|first3=John|last4=Adams|first4=Abigail|last5=Madison|first5=James|last6=Smith|first6=John Rubens|last7=Washington|first7=George|last8=Birch|first8=William|last9=Monroe|first9=James|date=2008-04-12|title=Road to the Constitution - Creating the United States {{!}} Exhibitions - Library of Congress|url=https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/road-to-the-constitution.html|access-date=2021-02-06|website=www.loc.gov}}</ref>
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">
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>https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-10</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 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. Once the convention concluded and released the Constitution for public consumption, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist movements soon began publicizing their disagreeing beliefs in local newspapers and segments.<ref>{{harvnb|Roche|1961|p=814}}</ref>
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 Antifederalists "were much more committed to strong states and a weak national government....A strong national government, they felt, would be distant from the people and would use its powers to annihilate or absorb the functions that properly belonged to the states."<ref>{{Cite book |last=James Wilson |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1fZfk-KosYcC&pg=PA21 |title=American Government: Brief Edition |publisher=Cengage Learning |year=2008 |isbn=978-0547212760 |pages=21–22}}.</ref>
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" />
Line 49:
==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 name="Epstein, Lee, 1958">{{Cite book |last=Epstein, Lee, 1958- |title=Constitutional law for a changing America. Rights, liberties, and justice |date=October 2, 2015 |others=Walker, Thomas G., 1945- |isbn=9781483384016 |edition=Ninth |location=Thousand Oaks, California |oclc=910310223}}</ref> The 14th Amendment ensured the shielding of fundamental rights of the individual citizen against the threats presented by rights of the state by the [[Privileges or Immunities Clause]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Privileges and Immunities Clause|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privileges_and_immunities_clause|access-date=2021-02-06|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en}}</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 119:
===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>
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|last1=Milkis|first1=Sidney M.|last2=Rhodes|first2=Jesse H.|date=2007-01-01|title=George W. Bush, the Party System, and American Federalism|url=https://academic.oup.com/publius/article/37/3/478/1921255|journal=Publius: The Journal of Federalism|language=en|volume=37|issue=3|pages=478–503|doi=10.1093/publius/pjm012|issn=0048-5950|doi-access=free}}</ref> According to Thomas L. Gais on federalism in the Obama Administration, "effort to impose central control is nothing new: GWB Administration did much the same."<ref name=":6" />
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
Federalism under [[Donald Trump]] (2017-2021) was more complicated. In 2020, during the [[COVID-19 pandemic in the United States|coronavirus pandemic]], the presidency delayed action and federal agencies faced interference from the presidency, 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>
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==
| |||