Content deleted Content added
Clearing cite and cs1 errors |
|||
Line 29:
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" />
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 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
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>
Line 111:
== New federalism ==
{{main|New Federalism}}
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/
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 congress to regulate waste management. The courts ruled that it violated the 10th amendment because congress made the state of New York commandeer to federal regulations when states already take legal ownership and liability for waste treatment. Establishing this principle, giving states more autonomy on issues that fall under their discretion.
Line 128:
==== Presidency of Donald Trump ====
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|date=July 22, 2020 |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/
==== Presidency of Joe Biden ====
| |||