{"id":54,"date":"2015-06-09T17:21:55","date_gmt":"2015-06-09T17:21:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.candelalearning.com\/masteryusgovernment1x6xmaster\/?post_type=chapter&p=54"},"modified":"2016-03-28T15:41:21","modified_gmt":"2016-03-28T15:41:21","slug":"why-it-matters","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/spokanecc-americangovernment\/chapter\/why-it-matters\/","title":{"raw":"Why It Matters","rendered":"Why It Matters"},"content":{"raw":"

Analyze the principle division of power between national and state governments in the American political system<\/span><\/h2>\r\n\"Black-and-white<\/a>\r\n\r\n \r\n

Introduction<\/h3>\r\nWhy does it matter where decisions are made? Would it be more efficient or wise to allow the national government to make most of the important calls about public policy? Or, on the flip side, should each state drive policy, with the feds taking a less prominent role? What are the implications for democratic self-rule concerning our choices about where decisions are made? Is government \u201cclosest to the people\u201d more democratic by definition, or is the relationship more complex than that?\r\n\r\nYou might be surprised to learn that these sorts of questions\u2014tied to the issue of federalism\u2014drive numerous political debates. For example, recently some states and localities changed their laws to accommodate both medical and recreational marijuana use. One big problem: it\u2019s still illegal under federal law. It's an important public policy question, so\u00a0who should decide what the law is? How would you justify your answer?\r\n\r\nConsider the following\u00a0case:\r\n\r\nA few years back the Supreme Court held that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act\u2014also known as \u201cObamacare\u201d\u2014couldn't legally force states to expand their Medicaid coverage, thereby making that portion of the law \u201coptional\u201d for each state. In that case, the Court complained that even though the federal government offered the \u201ccarrot\u201d of funding states 100 percent for the expanded coverage during the first three years (not less than 90 percent after that), the accompanying \u201cstick\"\u2014stripping uncooperative states of all their federal Medicaid funding\u2014was unduly coercive.\r\n\r\nSome joked that this sort of coercion amounted to \u201ctake this money or I\u2019ll shoot,\u201d but it did demonstrate that the Court takes the principle of state sovereignty pretty seriously (at least some of the time). Of course, defending the states also meant that millions of poor Americans wouldn\u2019t gain access to health insurance because their states \u201copted out\u201d of Obamacare\u2019s Medicaid expansion provision.\r\n\r\nDo you think the Supreme Court got this one right? Do you think the states that opted out made the right decision? How should we think about these questions?\r\n\r\nConsider these issues\u00a0as you watch the video, below, which provides an excellent introduction to the topic of federalism:\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=jn54hCIxF3Q\r\n

Learning Outcomes<\/h3>\r\n