{"id":79,"date":"2017-08-08T16:28:11","date_gmt":"2017-08-08T16:28:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/openstax-americangovernment\/chapter\/the-evolution-of-american-federalism\/"},"modified":"2018-12-13T16:42:44","modified_gmt":"2018-12-13T16:42:44","slug":"the-evolution-of-american-federalism","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/chapter\/the-evolution-of-american-federalism\/","title":{"raw":"The Evolution of American Federalism","rendered":"The Evolution of American Federalism"},"content":{"raw":"<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\r\n<h3>Learning Objectives<\/h3>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758439823\">By the end of this section, you will be able to:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul id=\"fs-id1163758353981\">\r\n \t<li>Describe how federalism has evolved in the United States<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Compare different conceptions of federalism<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758500041\">The Constitution sketches a federal framework that aims to balance the forces of decentralized and centralized governance in general terms; it does not flesh out standard operating procedures that say precisely how the states and federal governments are to handle all policy contingencies imaginable. Therefore, officials at the state and national levels have had some room to maneuver as they operate within the Constitution\u2019s federal design. This has led to changes in the configuration of federalism over time, changes corresponding to different historical phases that capture distinct balances between state and federal authority.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758499740\" class=\"bc-section section\">\r\n<h2>THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN NATIONAL POWER AND STATE POWER<\/h2>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758533637\">As George Washington\u2019s secretary of the treasury from 1789 to 1795, Alexander <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Hamilton<\/span> championed legislative efforts to create a publicly chartered bank. For Hamilton, the establishment of the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Bank of the United States<\/span> was fully within Congress\u2019s authority, and he hoped the bank would foster economic development, print and circulate paper money, and provide loans to the government. Although Thomas <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Jefferson<\/span>, Washington\u2019s secretary of state, staunchly opposed Hamilton\u2019s plan on the constitutional grounds that the national government had no authority to create such an instrument, Hamilton managed to convince the reluctant president to sign the legislation.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"rf-019\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">The Lehrman Institute. \u201cThe Founding Trio: Washington, Hamilton and Jefferson.\u201d http:\/\/lehrmaninstitute.org\/history\/FoundingTrio.asp<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758390333\">When the bank\u2019s charter expired in 1811, <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans<\/span> prevailed in blocking its renewal. However, the fiscal hardships that plagued the government during the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">War of 1812<\/span>, coupled with the fragility of the country\u2019s financial system, convinced Congress and then-president James <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Madison<\/span> to create the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Second Bank of the United States<\/span> in 1816. Many states rejected the Second Bank, arguing that the national government was infringing upon the states\u2019 constitutional jurisdiction.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758513865\">A political showdown between Maryland and the national government emerged when James McCulloch, an agent for the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank, refused to pay a tax that Maryland had imposed on all out-of-state chartered banks. The standoff raised two constitutional questions: Did Congress have the authority to charter a national bank? Were states allowed to tax federal property? In <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>McCulloch v. Maryland<\/em><\/span>, Chief Justice John <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Marshall\u00a0<\/span>argued that Congress could create a national bank even though the Constitution did not expressly authorize it.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"rf-020\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>McCulloch v. Maryland<\/em>, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nUnder the necessary and proper clause of <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Article I<\/span>, Section 8, the Supreme Court asserted that Congress could establish \u201call means which are appropriate\u201d to fulfill \u201cthe legitimate ends\u201d of the Constitution. In other words, the bank was an appropriate instrument that enabled the national government to carry out several of its enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate commerce, collecting taxes, and borrowing money.\r\n<div id=\"OSC_AmGov_03_02_Marshall\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"225\"]<img src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2292\/2017\/08\/08162735\/OSC_AmGov_03_02_Marshall.jpg\" alt=\"A portrait of Chief Justice John Marshall.\" width=\"225\" height=\"279\" \/> Chief Justice John Marshall, shown here in a portrait by Henry Inman, was best known for the principle of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), which reinforced the influence and independence of the judiciary branch of the U.S. government.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758375175\">This ruling established the doctrine of implied powers, granting Congress a vast source of discretionary power to achieve its constitutional responsibilities. The Supreme Court also sided with the federal government on the issue of whether states could tax federal property. Under the supremacy clause of <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Article VI<\/span>, legitimate national laws trump conflicting state laws. As the court observed, \u201cthe government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action and its laws, when made in pursuance of the constitution, form the supreme law of the land.\u201d Maryland\u2019s action violated national supremacy because \u201cthe power to tax is the power to destroy.\u201d This second ruling established the principle of national supremacy, which prohibits states from meddling in the lawful activities of the national government.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758555962\">Defining the scope of national power was the subject of another landmark Supreme Court decision in 1824. In <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>Gibbons v. Ogden<\/em><\/span>, the court had to interpret the commerce clause of <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Article I<\/span>, Section 8; specifically, it had to determine whether the federal government had the sole authority to regulate the licensing of steamboats operating between New York and New Jersey.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"rf-021\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Gibbons v. Ogden<\/em>, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nAaron Ogden, who had obtained an exclusive license from New York State to operate steamboat ferries between New York City and New Jersey, sued Thomas Gibbons, who was operating ferries along the same route under a coasting license issued by the federal government. Gibbons lost in New York state courts and appealed. Chief Justice <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Marshall<\/span> delivered a two-part ruling in favor of Gibbons that strengthened the power of the national government. First, interstate commerce was interpreted broadly to mean \u201ccommercial intercourse\u201d among states, thus allowing Congress to regulate navigation. Second, because the federal <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Licensing Act<\/span> of 1793, which regulated coastal commerce, was a constitutional exercise of Congress\u2019s authority under the commerce clause, federal law trumped the New York State license-monopoly law that had granted Ogden an exclusive steamboat operating license. As Marshall pointed out, \u201cthe acts of New York must yield to the law of Congress.\u201d\r\n<div id=\"rf-022\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Gibbons v. Ogden<\/em>, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nVarious states railed against the nationalization of power that had been going on since the late 1700s. When President John <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Adams<\/span> signed the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Sedition Act<\/span> in 1798, which made it a crime to speak openly against the government, the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures passed resolutions declaring the act null on the grounds that they retained the discretion to follow national laws. In effect, these resolutions articulated the legal reasoning underpinning the doctrine of nullification\u2014that states had the right to reject national laws they deemed unconstitutional.\r\n<div id=\"rf-023\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">W. Kirk Wood. 2008. <em>Nullification, A Constitutional History, 1776\u20131833<\/em>. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758398953\">A nullification crisis emerged in the 1830s over President Andrew Jackson\u2019s tariff acts of 1828 and 1832. Led by John <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Calhoun<\/span>, President Jackson\u2019s vice president, nullifiers argued that high tariffs on imported goods benefited northern manufacturing interests while disadvantaging economies in the South. South Carolina passed an <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Ordinance of Nullification<\/span> declaring both tariff acts null and void and threatened to leave the Union. The federal government responded by enacting the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Force Bill<\/span> in 1833, authorizing President <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Jackson<\/span> to use military force against states that challenged federal tariff laws. The prospect of military action coupled with the passage of the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Compromise Tariff Act<\/span> of 1833 (which lowered tariffs over time) led South Carolina to back off, ending the nullification crisis.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758306606\">The ultimate showdown between national and state authority came during the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Civil War<\/span>. Prior to the conflict, in <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>Dred Scott v. Sandford<\/em><\/span>, the Supreme Court ruled that the national government lacked the authority to ban slavery in the territories.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"rf-024\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Dred Scott v. Sandford<\/em>, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nBut the election of President Abraham <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Lincoln<\/span> in 1860 led eleven southern states to secede from the United States because they believed the new president would challenge the institution of slavery. What was initially a conflict to preserve the Union became a conflict to end slavery when Lincoln issued the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Emancipation Proclamation<\/span> in 1863, freeing all slaves in the rebellious states. The defeat of the South had a huge impact on the balance of power between the states and the national government in two important ways. First, the Union victory put an end to the right of states to secede and to challenge legitimate national laws. Second, Congress imposed several conditions for readmitting former Confederate states into the Union; among them was ratification of the Fourteenth and <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Fifteenth Amendment<\/span>s. In sum, after the Civil War the power balance shifted toward the national government, a movement that had begun several decades before with <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>McCulloch v. Maryland<\/em><\/span> (1819) and <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>Gibbons v. Odgen<\/em><\/span> (1824).\r\n\r\nThe period between 1819 and the 1860s demonstrated that the national government sought to establish its role within the newly created federal design, which in turn often provoked the states to resist as they sought to protect their interests. With the exception of the Civil War, the Supreme Court settled the power struggles between the states and national government. From a historical perspective, the national supremacy principle introduced during this period did not so much narrow the states\u2019 scope of constitutional authority as restrict their encroachment on national powers.\r\n<div id=\"rf-025\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Joseph R. Marbach, Troy E. Smith, and Ellis Katz. 2005. <em>Federalism in America: An Encyclopedia<\/em>. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758366103\" class=\"bc-section section\">\r\n<h2>DUAL FEDERALISM<\/h2>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758542972\">The late 1870s ushered in a new phase in the evolution of U.S. federalism. Under dual federalism, the states and national government exercise exclusive authority in distinctly delineated spheres of jurisdiction. Like the layers of a cake, the levels of government do not blend with one another but rather are clearly defined. Two factors contributed to the emergence of this conception of federalism. First, several Supreme Court rulings blocked attempts by both state and federal governments to step outside their jurisdictional boundaries. Second, the prevailing economic philosophy at the time loathed government interference in the process of industrial development.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758509120\">Industrialization changed the socioeconomic landscape of the United States. One of its adverse effects was the concentration of market power. Because there was no national regulatory supervision to ensure fairness in market practices, collusive behavior among powerful firms emerged in several industries.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"rf-026\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\r\n<div id=\"rf-026\" class=\"note reference\" style=\"text-align: center\">Marc Allen Eisner. 2014. <em>The American Political Economy: Institutional Evolution of Market and State<\/em>. New York: Routledge.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nTo curtail widespread anticompetitive practices in the railroad industry, Congress passed the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Interstate Commerce Act<\/span> in 1887, which created the Interstate Commerce Commission. Three years later, national regulatory capacity was broadened by the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Sherman Antitrust Act<\/span> of 1890, which made it illegal to monopolize or attempt to monopolize and conspire in restraining commerce (Figure 03_02_Commerce). In the early stages of industrial capitalism, federal regulations were focused for the most part on promoting market competition rather than on addressing the social dislocations resulting from market operations, something the government began to tackle in the 1930s.\r\n<div id=\"rf-027\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Eisner, <em>The American Political Economy<\/em>; Stephen Skowronek. 1982. <em>Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877\u20131920<\/em>. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"OSC_AmGov_03_02_Commerce\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"975\"]<img src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2292\/2017\/08\/08162742\/OSC_AmGov_03_02_Commerce.jpg\" alt=\"Image A is an illustration of a large fly with a man\u2019s face. The fly is stuck in a web labeled \u201cThe Law\u201d. In the center of the web is a spider labeled \u201cInterstate Commerce Commission\u201d. Under the image, a caption states \u201cWill you walk into my parlor?\u201d The Puck magazine title runs across the top of the image. In image B, President William Howard Taft stands behind his attorney general George W. Wickersham as Wickersham tries to beat a \u201cMonopoly\u201d, depicted as a round bottomed statue of a top hat and tuxedo wearing man, with a stick labeled \u201cSherman Law\u201d. The caption under the illustration says \u201cWhy doesn\u2019t it stay down when I hit it?\u201d\" width=\"975\" height=\"693\" \/> Puck, a humor magazine published from 1871 to 1918, satirized political issues of the day such as federal attempts to regulate commerce and prevent monopolies. \u201c\u2018Will you walk into my parlor?\u2019 said the spider to the fly\u201d (a) by Udo Keppler depicts a spider labeled \u201cInterstate Commerce Commission\u201d capturing a large fly in a web labeled \u201cThe Law\u201d while \u201cPlague take it! Why doesn\u2019t it stay down when I hit it?\u201d (b), also drawn by Keppler, shows President William Howard Taft and his attorney general, George W. Wickersham, trying to beat a \u201cMonopoly\u201d into submission with a stick labeled \u201cSherman Law.\u201d[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758414986\">The new federal regulatory regime was dealt a legal blow early in its existence. In 1895, in <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>United States v. E. C. Knight<\/em><\/span>, the Supreme Court ruled that the national government lacked the authority to regulate manufacturing.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"rf-028\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>United States v. E. C. Knight<\/em>, 156 U.S. 1 (1895).<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nThe case came about when the government, using its regulatory power under the Sherman Act, attempted to override American Sugar\u2019s purchase of four sugar refineries, which would give the company a commanding share of the industry. Distinguishing between commerce among states and the production of goods, the court argued that the national government\u2019s regulatory authority applied only to commercial activities. If manufacturing activities fell within the purview of the commerce clause of the Constitution, then \u201ccomparatively little of business operations would be left for state control,\u201d the court argued.\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758308583\">In the late 1800s, some states attempted to regulate working conditions. For example, New York State passed the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Bakeshop Act<\/span> in 1897, which prohibited bakery employees from working more than sixty hours in a week. In <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>Lochner v. New York<\/em><\/span>, the Supreme Court ruled this state regulation that capped work hours unconstitutional, on the grounds that it violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"rf-029\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\r\n<div id=\"rf-029\" class=\"note reference\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Lochner v. New York<\/em>, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nIn other words, the right to sell and buy labor is a \u201cliberty of the individual\u201d safeguarded by the Constitution, the court asserted. The federal government also took up the issue of working conditions, but that case resulted in the same outcome as in the <em>Lochner<\/em> case.\r\n<div id=\"rf-030\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\r\n<div id=\"rf-030\" class=\"note reference\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Hammer v. Dagenhart<\/em>, 247 U.S. 251 (1918).<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758372663\" class=\"bc-section section\">\r\n<h2>COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM<\/h2>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758369222\">The <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Great Depression<\/span> of the 1930s brought economic hardships the nation had never witnessed before. Between 1929 and 1933, the national unemployment rate reached 25 percent, industrial output dropped by half, stock market assets lost more than half their value, thousands of banks went out of business, and the gross domestic product shrunk by one-quarter.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"rf-031\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Nicholas Crafts and Peter Fearon. 2010. \u201cLessons from the 1930s Great Depression,\u201d <em>Oxford Review of Economic Policy<\/em> 26: 286\u2013287; Gene Smiley. \u201cThe Concise Encyclopedia of Economics: Great Depression.\u201d http:\/\/www.econlib.org\/library\/Enc\/GreatDepression.html<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nGiven the magnitude of the economic depression, there was pressure on the national government to coordinate a robust national response along with the states.\r\n<div id=\"OSC_AmGov_03_02_Foodline\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"525\"]<img src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2292\/2017\/08\/08162747\/OSC_AmGov_03_02_Foodline.jpg\" alt=\"Photo shows a line of people in long coats and hats standing in line outside a building with a sign that states \u201cFree Cup Coffee &amp; Doughnuts for the Unemployed\u201d.\" width=\"525\" height=\"423\" \/> A line outside a Chicago soup kitchen in 1931, in the midst of the Great Depression. The sign above reads \u201cFree Soup, Coffee, and Doughnuts for the Unemployed.\u201d[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758384450\">Cooperative federalism was born of necessity and lasted well into the twentieth century as the national and state governments each found it beneficial. Under this model, both levels of government coordinated their actions to solve national problems, such as the Great Depression and the civil rights struggle of the following decades. In contrast to dual federalism, it erodes the jurisdictional boundaries between the states and national government, leading to a blending of layers as in a marble cake. The era of cooperative federalism contributed to the gradual incursion of national authority into the jurisdictional domain of the states, as well as the expansion of the national government\u2019s power in concurrent policy areas.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"rf-032\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Marbach et al, <em>Federalism in America: An Encyclopedia<\/em>.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758534099\">The <span class=\"no-emphasis\">New Deal<\/span> programs President Franklin D. <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Roosevelt<\/span> proposed as a means to tackle the Great Depression ran afoul of the dual-federalism mindset of the justices on the Supreme Court in the 1930s. The court struck down key pillars of the New Deal\u2014the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">National Industrial Recovery Act<\/span> and the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Agricultural Adjustment Act<\/span>, for example\u2014on the grounds that the federal government was operating in matters that were within the purview of the states. The court\u2019s obstructionist position infuriated Roosevelt, leading him in 1937 to propose a court-packing plan that would add one new justice for each one over the age of seventy, thus allowing the president to make a maximum of six new appointments. Before Congress took action on the proposal, the Supreme Court began leaning in support of the New Deal as Chief Justice Charles Evans <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Hughes<\/span> and Justice Owen <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Roberts<\/span> changed their view on federalism.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"rf-033\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Jeff Shesol. 2010. <em>Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court<\/em>. New York: W. W. Norton.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"rf-034\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) v. Jones &amp; Laughlin Steel<\/em>, 301 U.S. 1 (1937).<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nIn <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) v. Jones and Laughlin Steel<\/em><\/span>, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">National Labor Relations Act<\/span> of 1935 constitutional, asserting that Congress can use its authority under the commerce clause to regulate both manufacturing activities and labor-management relations. The New Deal changed the relationship Americans had with the national government. Before the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Great Depression<\/span>, the government offered little in terms of financial aid, social benefits, and economic rights. After the New Deal, it provided old-age pensions (Social Security), unemployment insurance, agricultural subsidies, protections for organizing in the workplace, and a variety of other public services created during Roosevelt\u2019s administration.\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758512721\">In the 1960s, President Lyndon <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Johnson<\/span>\u2019s administration expanded the national government\u2019s role in society even more. <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Medicaid<\/span> (which provides medical assistance to the indigent), <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Medicare<\/span> (which provides health insurance to the elderly and disabled), and school nutrition programs were created. The <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Elementary and Secondary Education Act<\/span> (1965), the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Higher Education Act<\/span> (1965), and the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Head Start<\/span> preschool program (1965) were established to expand educational opportunities and equality. The <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Clean Air Act<\/span> (1965), the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Highway Safety Act<\/span> (1966), and the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Fair Packaging and Labeling Act<\/span> (1966) promoted environmental and consumer protection. Finally, laws were passed to promote urban renewal, public housing development, and affordable housing. In addition to these Great Society programs, the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Civil Rights Act<\/span> (1964) and the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Voting Rights Act<\/span> (1965) gave the federal government effective tools to promote civil rights equality across the country.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"OSC_AmGov_03_02_HeadStart\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"975\"]<img src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2292\/2017\/08\/08162756\/OSC_AmGov_03_02_HeadStart.jpg\" alt=\"Image A shows Lady Bird Johnson reading to a group of young children. Image B shows Barack Obama sitting at a desk with a couple of elementary school students.\" width=\"975\" height=\"344\" \/> Lady Bird Johnson, the First Lady, reads to students enrolled in Head Start (a) at the Kemper School in Washington, DC, on March 19, 1966. President Obama visits a Head Start classroom (b) in Lawrence, Kansas, on January 22, 2015.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758442026\">While the era of cooperative federalism witnessed a broadening of federal powers in concurrent and state policy domains, it is also the era of a deepening coordination between the states and the federal government in Washington. Nowhere is this clearer than with respect to the social welfare and social insurance programs created during the New Deal and Great Society eras, most of which are administered by both state and federal authorities and are jointly funded. The <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Social Security Act<\/span> of 1935, which created federal subsidies for state-administered programs for the elderly; people with handicaps; dependent mothers; and children, gave state and local officials wide discretion over eligibility and benefit levels. The unemployment insurance program, also created by the Social Security Act, requires states to provide jobless benefits, but it allows them significant latitude to decide the level of tax to impose on businesses in order to fund the program as well as the duration and replacement rate of unemployment benefits. A similar multilevel division of labor governs Medicaid and Children\u2019s Health Insurance.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"rf-035\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Lawrence R. Jacobs and Theda Skocpol. 2014. \u201cProgressive Federalism and the Contested Implemented of Obama\u2019s Health Reform,\u201d In <em>The Politics of Major Policy Reform in Postwar America<\/em>, eds. Jeffrey A. Jenkins and Sidney M. Milkis. New York: Cambridge University Press.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758401855\">Thus, the era of cooperative federalism left two lasting attributes on federalism in the United States. First, a nationalization of politics emerged as a result of federal legislative activism aimed at addressing national problems such as marketplace inefficiencies, social and political inequality, and poverty. The nationalization process expanded the size of the federal administrative apparatus and increased the flow of federal grants to state and local authorities, which have helped offset the financial costs of maintaining a host of New Deal- and Great Society\u2013era programs. The second lasting attribute is the flexibility that states and local authorities were given in the implementation of federal social welfare programs. One consequence of administrative flexibility, however, is that it has led to cross-state differences in the levels of benefits and coverage.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"rf-036\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">R. Kent Weaver. 2000. <em>Ending Welfare as We Know It<\/em>. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758532700\" class=\"bc-section section\">\r\n<h2>NEW FEDERALISM<\/h2>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758343230\">During the administrations of Presidents Richard <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Nixon<\/span> (1969\u20131974) and Ronald <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Reagan<\/span> (1981\u20131989), attempts were made to reverse the process of nationalization\u2014that is, to restore states\u2019 prominence in policy areas into which the federal government had moved in the past. New federalism is premised on the idea that the decentralization of policies enhances administrative efficiency, reduces overall public spending, and improves policy outcomes. During Nixon\u2019s administration, general revenue sharing programs were created that distributed funds to the state and local governments with minimal restrictions on how the money was spent. The election of Ronald Reagan heralded the advent of a \u201cdevolution revolution\u201d in U.S. federalism, in which the president pledged to return authority to the states according to the Constitution. In the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act<\/span> of 1981, congressional leaders together with President Reagan consolidated numerous federal grant programs related to social welfare and reformulated them in order to give state and local administrators greater discretion in using federal funds.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"rf-037\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Allen Schick. 2007. <em>The Federal Budget<\/em>, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758473620\">However, Reagan\u2019s track record in promoting new federalism was inconsistent. This was partly due to the fact that the president\u2019s devolution agenda met some opposition from Democrats in Congress, moderate Republicans, and interest groups, preventing him from making further advances on that front. For example, his efforts to completely devolve Aid to Families With Dependent Children (a New Deal-era program) and food stamps (a Great Society-era program) to the states were rejected by members of Congress, who feared states would underfund both programs, and by members of the National Governors\u2019 Association, who believed the proposal would be too costly for states. Reagan terminated general revenue sharing in 1986.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"rf-038\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Dilger, \u201cFederal Grants to State and Local Governments,\u201d 30\u201331.<\/div>\r\nSeveral Supreme Court rulings also promoted new federalism by hemming in the scope of the national government\u2019s power, especially under the commerce clause. For example, in <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>United States v. Lopez<\/em><\/span>, the court struck down the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Gun-Free School Zones Act<\/span> of 1990, which banned gun possession in school zones.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"rf-039\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>United States v. Lopez<\/em>, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nIt argued that the regulation in question did not \u201csubstantively affect interstate commerce.\u201d The ruling ended a nearly sixty-year period in which the court had used a broad interpretation of the commerce clause that by the 1960s allowed it to regulate numerous local commercial activities.\r\n<div id=\"rf-040\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">See <em>Printz v. United States<\/em>, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).<\/div>\r\nHowever, many would say that the years since the 9\/11 attacks have swung the pendulum back in the direction of central federal power. The creation of the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Department of Homeland Security<\/span> federalized disaster response power in Washington, and the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Transportation Security Administration<\/span> was created to federalize airport security. Broad new federal policies and mandates have also been carried out in the form of the Faith-Based Initiative and <span class=\"no-emphasis\">No Child Left Behind<\/span> (during the George W. Bush administration) and the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Affordable Care Act<\/span> (during Barack Obama\u2019s administration).\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758335856\" class=\"note middle-ground\">\r\n<div class=\"title\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\r\n<h3 class=\"title\">Cooperative Federalism versus New Federalism<\/h3>\r\nMorton <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Grodzins<\/span> coined the cake analogy of federalism in the 1950s while conducting research on the evolution of American federalism. Until then most scholars had thought of federalism as a layer cake, but according to Grodzins the 1930s ushered in \u201cmarble-cake federalism\u201d: \u201cThe American form of government is often, but erroneously, symbolized by a three-layer cake. A far more accurate image is the rainbow or marble cake, characterized by an inseparable mingling of differently colored ingredients, the colors appearing in vertical and diagonal strands and unexpected whirls. As colors are mixed in the marble cake, so functions are mixed in the American federal system.\u201d\r\n<div id=\"rf-041\" class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Morton Grodzins. 2004. \u201cThe Federal System.\u201d In <em>American Government Readings and Cases<\/em>, ed. P. Woll. New York: Pearson Longman, 74\u201378.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"OSC_AmGov_03_02_Cake\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"825\"]<img src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2292\/2017\/08\/08162807\/OSC_AmGov_03_02_Cake.jpg\" alt=\"Image depicts federalism as two different types of cake. The first is labeled \u201cPast: Layer Cake Federalism\u201d. The cake has three cleary defined horizontal layers. A label states \u201cprograms and authority are clearly divided among the national, state, and local governments\u201d. The second cake is labeled \u201cPresent: Marble Cake Federalism\u201d. The cake has layers that are all swirled together instead of being cleanly defined by layers. A label states \u201cprograms and authority are mixed among the national, state, and local governments\u201d.\" width=\"825\" height=\"436\" \/> Morton Grodzins, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, coined the expression \u201cmarble-cake federalism\u201d in the 1950s to explain the evolution of federalism in the United States.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758400949\">Cooperative federalism has several merits:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul id=\"fs-id1163758425931\">\r\n \t<li>Because state and local governments have varying fiscal capacities, the national government\u2019s involvement in state activities such as education, health, and social welfare is necessary to ensure some degree of uniformity in the provision of public services to citizens in richer and poorer states.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>The problem of collective action, which dissuades state and local authorities from raising regulatory standards for fear they will be disadvantaged as others lower theirs, is resolved by requiring state and local authorities to meet minimum federal standards (e.g., minimum wage and air quality).<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Federal assistance is necessary to ensure state and local programs (e.g., water and air pollution controls) that generate positive externalities are maintained. For example, one state\u2019s environmental regulations impose higher fuel prices on its residents, but the externality of the cleaner air they produce benefits neighboring states. Without the federal government\u2019s support, this state and others like it would underfund such programs.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758542978\">New federalism has advantages as well:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul id=\"fs-id1163758555909\">\r\n \t<li>Because there are economic, demographic, social, and geographical differences among states, one-size-fits-all features of federal laws are suboptimal. Decentralization accommodates the diversity that exists across states.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>By virtue of being closer to citizens, state and local authorities are better than federal agencies at discerning the public\u2019s needs.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Decentralized federalism fosters a marketplace of innovative policy ideas as states compete against each other to minimize administrative costs and maximize policy output.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<em>Which model of federalism do you think works best for the United States? Why?<\/em>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758386728\" class=\"note american government link-to-learning\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">The leading international journal devoted to the practical and theoretical study of federalism is called <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.openstaxcollege.org\/l\/29publius\">Publius: The Journal of Federalism<\/a><\/em>. Find out where its name comes from.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758427521\" class=\"summary\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758440314\">Federalism in the United States has gone through several phases of evolution during which the relationship between the federal and state governments has varied. In the era of dual federalism, both levels of government stayed within their own jurisdictional spheres. During the era of cooperative federalism, the federal government became active in policy areas previously handled by the states. The 1970s ushered in an era of new federalism and attempts to decentralize policy management.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"review-questions\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758354612\" class=\"exercise\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758374453\" class=\"problem\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758354612\" class=\"exercise\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758374453\" class=\"problem\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758401785\">In <em>McCulloch v. Maryland<\/em>, the Supreme Court invoked which provisions of the constitution?<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ol id=\"fs-id1163758360309\">\r\n \t<li>Tenth Amendment and spending clause<\/li>\r\n \t<li>commerce clause and supremacy clause<\/li>\r\n \t<li>necessary and proper clause and supremacy clause<\/li>\r\n \t<li>taxing power and necessary and proper clause<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758500997\" class=\"solution\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758436940\">[reveal-answer q=\"293125\"]Show Answer[\/reveal-answer]\r\n[hidden-answer a=\"293125\"]C[\/hidden-answer]<\/p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758505412\" class=\"exercise\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758511184\" class=\"problem\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758502895\">Which statement about new federalism is <em>not<\/em> true?<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ol id=\"fs-id1163758509042\">\r\n \t<li>New federalism was launched by President Nixon and continued by President Reagan.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>New federalism is based on the idea that decentralization of responsibility enhances administrative efficiency.<\/li>\r\n \t<li><em>United States v. Lopez<\/em> is a Supreme Court ruling that advanced the logic of new federalism.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>President Reagan was able to promote new federalism consistently throughout his administration.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758456379\" class=\"exercise\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758373324\" class=\"problem\">\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nWhich is <em>not<\/em> a merit of cooperative federalism?\r\n<ol id=\"fs-id1163758379965\">\r\n \t<li>Federal cooperation helps mitigate the problem of collective action among states.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Federal assistance encourages state and local governments to generate positive externalities.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Cooperative federalism respects the traditional jurisdictional boundaries between states and federal government.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Federal assistance ensures some degree of uniformity of public services across states.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758304642\" class=\"solution\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758374212\">[reveal-answer q=\"309696\"]Show Answer[\/reveal-answer]\r\n[hidden-answer a=\"309696\"]C[\/hidden-answer]<\/p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758539382\" class=\"exercise\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758427036\" class=\"problem\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758441906\">What are the main differences between cooperative federalism and dual federalism?<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758469849\" class=\"exercise\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758420593\" class=\"problem\">\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758548175\">What were the implications of <em>McCulloch v. Maryland<\/em> for federalism?<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758374245\" class=\"solution\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758359586\">[reveal-answer q=\"617567\"]Show Answer[\/reveal-answer]\r\n[hidden-answer a=\"617567\"]The McCulloch decision established the doctrine of implied powers, meaning the federal government can create policy instruments deemed necessary and appropriate to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. The case also affirmed the principle of national supremacy embodied in Article VI of the Constitution, namely, that the Constitution and legitimate federal laws trump state laws.[\/hidden-answer]<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\r\n<h2>Glossary<\/h2>\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163758438545\" class=\"definition\">\r\n \t<dt>cooperative federalism<\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163758384325\">a style of federalism in which both levels of government coordinate their actions to solve national problems, leading to the blending of layers as in a marble cake<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163758440864\" class=\"definition\">\r\n \t<dt>dual federalism<\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163758510786\">a style of federalism in which the states and national government exercise exclusive authority in distinctly delineated spheres of jurisdiction, creating a layer-cake view of federalism<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163758513993\" class=\"definition\">\r\n \t<dt>general revenue sharing<\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163758511463\">a type of federal grant that places minimal restrictions on how state and local governments spend the money<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163758472729\" class=\"definition\">\r\n \t<dt>new federalism<\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163758539846\">a style of federalism premised on the idea that the decentralization of policies enhances administrative efficiency, reduces overall public spending, and improves outcomes<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163758401851\" class=\"definition\">\r\n \t<dt>nullification<\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163758409114\">a doctrine promoted by John Calhoun of South Carolina in the 1830s, asserting that if a state deems a federal law unconstitutional, it can nullify it within its borders<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\n<h3>Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758439823\">By the end of this section, you will be able to:<\/p>\n<ul id=\"fs-id1163758353981\">\n<li>Describe how federalism has evolved in the United States<\/li>\n<li>Compare different conceptions of federalism<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758500041\">The Constitution sketches a federal framework that aims to balance the forces of decentralized and centralized governance in general terms; it does not flesh out standard operating procedures that say precisely how the states and federal governments are to handle all policy contingencies imaginable. Therefore, officials at the state and national levels have had some room to maneuver as they operate within the Constitution\u2019s federal design. This has led to changes in the configuration of federalism over time, changes corresponding to different historical phases that capture distinct balances between state and federal authority.<\/p>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758499740\" class=\"bc-section section\">\n<h2>THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN NATIONAL POWER AND STATE POWER<\/h2>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758533637\">As George Washington\u2019s secretary of the treasury from 1789 to 1795, Alexander <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Hamilton<\/span> championed legislative efforts to create a publicly chartered bank. For Hamilton, the establishment of the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Bank of the United States<\/span> was fully within Congress\u2019s authority, and he hoped the bank would foster economic development, print and circulate paper money, and provide loans to the government. Although Thomas <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Jefferson<\/span>, Washington\u2019s secretary of state, staunchly opposed Hamilton\u2019s plan on the constitutional grounds that the national government had no authority to create such an instrument, Hamilton managed to convince the reluctant president to sign the legislation.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-019\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">The Lehrman Institute. \u201cThe Founding Trio: Washington, Hamilton and Jefferson.\u201d http:\/\/lehrmaninstitute.org\/history\/FoundingTrio.asp<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758390333\">When the bank\u2019s charter expired in 1811, <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans<\/span> prevailed in blocking its renewal. However, the fiscal hardships that plagued the government during the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">War of 1812<\/span>, coupled with the fragility of the country\u2019s financial system, convinced Congress and then-president James <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Madison<\/span> to create the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Second Bank of the United States<\/span> in 1816. Many states rejected the Second Bank, arguing that the national government was infringing upon the states\u2019 constitutional jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758513865\">A political showdown between Maryland and the national government emerged when James McCulloch, an agent for the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank, refused to pay a tax that Maryland had imposed on all out-of-state chartered banks. The standoff raised two constitutional questions: Did Congress have the authority to charter a national bank? Were states allowed to tax federal property? In <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>McCulloch v. Maryland<\/em><\/span>, Chief Justice John <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Marshall\u00a0<\/span>argued that Congress could create a national bank even though the Constitution did not expressly authorize it.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-020\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>McCulloch v. Maryland<\/em>, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>Under the necessary and proper clause of <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Article I<\/span>, Section 8, the Supreme Court asserted that Congress could establish \u201call means which are appropriate\u201d to fulfill \u201cthe legitimate ends\u201d of the Constitution. In other words, the bank was an appropriate instrument that enabled the national government to carry out several of its enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate commerce, collecting taxes, and borrowing money.<\/p>\n<div id=\"OSC_AmGov_03_02_Marshall\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\n<div style=\"width: 235px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2292\/2017\/08\/08162735\/OSC_AmGov_03_02_Marshall.jpg\" alt=\"A portrait of Chief Justice John Marshall.\" width=\"225\" height=\"279\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Chief Justice John Marshall, shown here in a portrait by Henry Inman, was best known for the principle of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), which reinforced the influence and independence of the judiciary branch of the U.S. government.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758375175\">This ruling established the doctrine of implied powers, granting Congress a vast source of discretionary power to achieve its constitutional responsibilities. The Supreme Court also sided with the federal government on the issue of whether states could tax federal property. Under the supremacy clause of <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Article VI<\/span>, legitimate national laws trump conflicting state laws. As the court observed, \u201cthe government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action and its laws, when made in pursuance of the constitution, form the supreme law of the land.\u201d Maryland\u2019s action violated national supremacy because \u201cthe power to tax is the power to destroy.\u201d This second ruling established the principle of national supremacy, which prohibits states from meddling in the lawful activities of the national government.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758555962\">Defining the scope of national power was the subject of another landmark Supreme Court decision in 1824. In <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>Gibbons v. Ogden<\/em><\/span>, the court had to interpret the commerce clause of <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Article I<\/span>, Section 8; specifically, it had to determine whether the federal government had the sole authority to regulate the licensing of steamboats operating between New York and New Jersey.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-021\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Gibbons v. Ogden<\/em>, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>Aaron Ogden, who had obtained an exclusive license from New York State to operate steamboat ferries between New York City and New Jersey, sued Thomas Gibbons, who was operating ferries along the same route under a coasting license issued by the federal government. Gibbons lost in New York state courts and appealed. Chief Justice <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Marshall<\/span> delivered a two-part ruling in favor of Gibbons that strengthened the power of the national government. First, interstate commerce was interpreted broadly to mean \u201ccommercial intercourse\u201d among states, thus allowing Congress to regulate navigation. Second, because the federal <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Licensing Act<\/span> of 1793, which regulated coastal commerce, was a constitutional exercise of Congress\u2019s authority under the commerce clause, federal law trumped the New York State license-monopoly law that had granted Ogden an exclusive steamboat operating license. As Marshall pointed out, \u201cthe acts of New York must yield to the law of Congress.\u201d<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-022\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Gibbons v. Ogden<\/em>, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>Various states railed against the nationalization of power that had been going on since the late 1700s. When President John <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Adams<\/span> signed the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Sedition Act<\/span> in 1798, which made it a crime to speak openly against the government, the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures passed resolutions declaring the act null on the grounds that they retained the discretion to follow national laws. In effect, these resolutions articulated the legal reasoning underpinning the doctrine of nullification\u2014that states had the right to reject national laws they deemed unconstitutional.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-023\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">W. Kirk Wood. 2008. <em>Nullification, A Constitutional History, 1776\u20131833<\/em>. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758398953\">A nullification crisis emerged in the 1830s over President Andrew Jackson\u2019s tariff acts of 1828 and 1832. Led by John <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Calhoun<\/span>, President Jackson\u2019s vice president, nullifiers argued that high tariffs on imported goods benefited northern manufacturing interests while disadvantaging economies in the South. South Carolina passed an <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Ordinance of Nullification<\/span> declaring both tariff acts null and void and threatened to leave the Union. The federal government responded by enacting the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Force Bill<\/span> in 1833, authorizing President <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Jackson<\/span> to use military force against states that challenged federal tariff laws. The prospect of military action coupled with the passage of the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Compromise Tariff Act<\/span> of 1833 (which lowered tariffs over time) led South Carolina to back off, ending the nullification crisis.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758306606\">The ultimate showdown between national and state authority came during the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Civil War<\/span>. Prior to the conflict, in <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>Dred Scott v. Sandford<\/em><\/span>, the Supreme Court ruled that the national government lacked the authority to ban slavery in the territories.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-024\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Dred Scott v. Sandford<\/em>, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>But the election of President Abraham <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Lincoln<\/span> in 1860 led eleven southern states to secede from the United States because they believed the new president would challenge the institution of slavery. What was initially a conflict to preserve the Union became a conflict to end slavery when Lincoln issued the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Emancipation Proclamation<\/span> in 1863, freeing all slaves in the rebellious states. The defeat of the South had a huge impact on the balance of power between the states and the national government in two important ways. First, the Union victory put an end to the right of states to secede and to challenge legitimate national laws. Second, Congress imposed several conditions for readmitting former Confederate states into the Union; among them was ratification of the Fourteenth and <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Fifteenth Amendment<\/span>s. In sum, after the Civil War the power balance shifted toward the national government, a movement that had begun several decades before with <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>McCulloch v. Maryland<\/em><\/span> (1819) and <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>Gibbons v. Odgen<\/em><\/span> (1824).<\/p>\n<p>The period between 1819 and the 1860s demonstrated that the national government sought to establish its role within the newly created federal design, which in turn often provoked the states to resist as they sought to protect their interests. With the exception of the Civil War, the Supreme Court settled the power struggles between the states and national government. From a historical perspective, the national supremacy principle introduced during this period did not so much narrow the states\u2019 scope of constitutional authority as restrict their encroachment on national powers.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-025\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Joseph R. Marbach, Troy E. Smith, and Ellis Katz. 2005. <em>Federalism in America: An Encyclopedia<\/em>. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758366103\" class=\"bc-section section\">\n<h2>DUAL FEDERALISM<\/h2>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758542972\">The late 1870s ushered in a new phase in the evolution of U.S. federalism. Under dual federalism, the states and national government exercise exclusive authority in distinctly delineated spheres of jurisdiction. Like the layers of a cake, the levels of government do not blend with one another but rather are clearly defined. Two factors contributed to the emergence of this conception of federalism. First, several Supreme Court rulings blocked attempts by both state and federal governments to step outside their jurisdictional boundaries. Second, the prevailing economic philosophy at the time loathed government interference in the process of industrial development.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758509120\">Industrialization changed the socioeconomic landscape of the United States. One of its adverse effects was the concentration of market power. Because there was no national regulatory supervision to ensure fairness in market practices, collusive behavior among powerful firms emerged in several industries.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-026\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<div id=\"rf-026\" class=\"note reference\" style=\"text-align: center\">Marc Allen Eisner. 2014. <em>The American Political Economy: Institutional Evolution of Market and State<\/em>. New York: Routledge.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>To curtail widespread anticompetitive practices in the railroad industry, Congress passed the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Interstate Commerce Act<\/span> in 1887, which created the Interstate Commerce Commission. Three years later, national regulatory capacity was broadened by the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Sherman Antitrust Act<\/span> of 1890, which made it illegal to monopolize or attempt to monopolize and conspire in restraining commerce (Figure 03_02_Commerce). In the early stages of industrial capitalism, federal regulations were focused for the most part on promoting market competition rather than on addressing the social dislocations resulting from market operations, something the government began to tackle in the 1930s.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-027\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Eisner, <em>The American Political Economy<\/em>; Stephen Skowronek. 1982. <em>Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877\u20131920<\/em>. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"OSC_AmGov_03_02_Commerce\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\n<div style=\"width: 985px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2292\/2017\/08\/08162742\/OSC_AmGov_03_02_Commerce.jpg\" alt=\"Image A is an illustration of a large fly with a man\u2019s face. The fly is stuck in a web labeled \u201cThe Law\u201d. In the center of the web is a spider labeled \u201cInterstate Commerce Commission\u201d. Under the image, a caption states \u201cWill you walk into my parlor?\u201d The Puck magazine title runs across the top of the image. In image B, President William Howard Taft stands behind his attorney general George W. Wickersham as Wickersham tries to beat a \u201cMonopoly\u201d, depicted as a round bottomed statue of a top hat and tuxedo wearing man, with a stick labeled \u201cSherman Law\u201d. The caption under the illustration says \u201cWhy doesn\u2019t it stay down when I hit it?\u201d\" width=\"975\" height=\"693\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Puck, a humor magazine published from 1871 to 1918, satirized political issues of the day such as federal attempts to regulate commerce and prevent monopolies. \u201c\u2018Will you walk into my parlor?\u2019 said the spider to the fly\u201d (a) by Udo Keppler depicts a spider labeled \u201cInterstate Commerce Commission\u201d capturing a large fly in a web labeled \u201cThe Law\u201d while \u201cPlague take it! Why doesn\u2019t it stay down when I hit it?\u201d (b), also drawn by Keppler, shows President William Howard Taft and his attorney general, George W. Wickersham, trying to beat a \u201cMonopoly\u201d into submission with a stick labeled \u201cSherman Law.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758414986\">The new federal regulatory regime was dealt a legal blow early in its existence. In 1895, in <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>United States v. E. C. Knight<\/em><\/span>, the Supreme Court ruled that the national government lacked the authority to regulate manufacturing.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-028\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>United States v. E. C. Knight<\/em>, 156 U.S. 1 (1895).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>The case came about when the government, using its regulatory power under the Sherman Act, attempted to override American Sugar\u2019s purchase of four sugar refineries, which would give the company a commanding share of the industry. Distinguishing between commerce among states and the production of goods, the court argued that the national government\u2019s regulatory authority applied only to commercial activities. If manufacturing activities fell within the purview of the commerce clause of the Constitution, then \u201ccomparatively little of business operations would be left for state control,\u201d the court argued.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758308583\">In the late 1800s, some states attempted to regulate working conditions. For example, New York State passed the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Bakeshop Act<\/span> in 1897, which prohibited bakery employees from working more than sixty hours in a week. In <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>Lochner v. New York<\/em><\/span>, the Supreme Court ruled this state regulation that capped work hours unconstitutional, on the grounds that it violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-029\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<div id=\"rf-029\" class=\"note reference\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Lochner v. New York<\/em>, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>In other words, the right to sell and buy labor is a \u201cliberty of the individual\u201d safeguarded by the Constitution, the court asserted. The federal government also took up the issue of working conditions, but that case resulted in the same outcome as in the <em>Lochner<\/em> case.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-030\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<div id=\"rf-030\" class=\"note reference\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Hammer v. Dagenhart<\/em>, 247 U.S. 251 (1918).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758372663\" class=\"bc-section section\">\n<h2>COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM<\/h2>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758369222\">The <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Great Depression<\/span> of the 1930s brought economic hardships the nation had never witnessed before. Between 1929 and 1933, the national unemployment rate reached 25 percent, industrial output dropped by half, stock market assets lost more than half their value, thousands of banks went out of business, and the gross domestic product shrunk by one-quarter.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-031\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Nicholas Crafts and Peter Fearon. 2010. \u201cLessons from the 1930s Great Depression,\u201d <em>Oxford Review of Economic Policy<\/em> 26: 286\u2013287; Gene Smiley. \u201cThe Concise Encyclopedia of Economics: Great Depression.\u201d http:\/\/www.econlib.org\/library\/Enc\/GreatDepression.html<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>Given the magnitude of the economic depression, there was pressure on the national government to coordinate a robust national response along with the states.<\/p>\n<div id=\"OSC_AmGov_03_02_Foodline\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\n<div style=\"width: 535px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2292\/2017\/08\/08162747\/OSC_AmGov_03_02_Foodline.jpg\" alt=\"Photo shows a line of people in long coats and hats standing in line outside a building with a sign that states \u201cFree Cup Coffee &amp; Doughnuts for the Unemployed\u201d.\" width=\"525\" height=\"423\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">A line outside a Chicago soup kitchen in 1931, in the midst of the Great Depression. The sign above reads \u201cFree Soup, Coffee, and Doughnuts for the Unemployed.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758384450\">Cooperative federalism was born of necessity and lasted well into the twentieth century as the national and state governments each found it beneficial. Under this model, both levels of government coordinated their actions to solve national problems, such as the Great Depression and the civil rights struggle of the following decades. In contrast to dual federalism, it erodes the jurisdictional boundaries between the states and national government, leading to a blending of layers as in a marble cake. The era of cooperative federalism contributed to the gradual incursion of national authority into the jurisdictional domain of the states, as well as the expansion of the national government\u2019s power in concurrent policy areas.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-032\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Marbach et al, <em>Federalism in America: An Encyclopedia<\/em>.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758534099\">The <span class=\"no-emphasis\">New Deal<\/span> programs President Franklin D. <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Roosevelt<\/span> proposed as a means to tackle the Great Depression ran afoul of the dual-federalism mindset of the justices on the Supreme Court in the 1930s. The court struck down key pillars of the New Deal\u2014the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">National Industrial Recovery Act<\/span> and the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Agricultural Adjustment Act<\/span>, for example\u2014on the grounds that the federal government was operating in matters that were within the purview of the states. The court\u2019s obstructionist position infuriated Roosevelt, leading him in 1937 to propose a court-packing plan that would add one new justice for each one over the age of seventy, thus allowing the president to make a maximum of six new appointments. Before Congress took action on the proposal, the Supreme Court began leaning in support of the New Deal as Chief Justice Charles Evans <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Hughes<\/span> and Justice Owen <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Roberts<\/span> changed their view on federalism.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-033\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Jeff Shesol. 2010. <em>Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court<\/em>. New York: W. W. Norton.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"rf-034\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) v. Jones &amp; Laughlin Steel<\/em>, 301 U.S. 1 (1937).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>In <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) v. Jones and Laughlin Steel<\/em><\/span>, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">National Labor Relations Act<\/span> of 1935 constitutional, asserting that Congress can use its authority under the commerce clause to regulate both manufacturing activities and labor-management relations. The New Deal changed the relationship Americans had with the national government. Before the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Great Depression<\/span>, the government offered little in terms of financial aid, social benefits, and economic rights. After the New Deal, it provided old-age pensions (Social Security), unemployment insurance, agricultural subsidies, protections for organizing in the workplace, and a variety of other public services created during Roosevelt\u2019s administration.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758512721\">In the 1960s, President Lyndon <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Johnson<\/span>\u2019s administration expanded the national government\u2019s role in society even more. <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Medicaid<\/span> (which provides medical assistance to the indigent), <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Medicare<\/span> (which provides health insurance to the elderly and disabled), and school nutrition programs were created. The <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Elementary and Secondary Education Act<\/span> (1965), the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Higher Education Act<\/span> (1965), and the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Head Start<\/span> preschool program (1965) were established to expand educational opportunities and equality. The <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Clean Air Act<\/span> (1965), the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Highway Safety Act<\/span> (1966), and the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Fair Packaging and Labeling Act<\/span> (1966) promoted environmental and consumer protection. Finally, laws were passed to promote urban renewal, public housing development, and affordable housing. In addition to these Great Society programs, the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Civil Rights Act<\/span> (1964) and the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Voting Rights Act<\/span> (1965) gave the federal government effective tools to promote civil rights equality across the country.<\/p>\n<div id=\"OSC_AmGov_03_02_HeadStart\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\n<div style=\"width: 985px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2292\/2017\/08\/08162756\/OSC_AmGov_03_02_HeadStart.jpg\" alt=\"Image A shows Lady Bird Johnson reading to a group of young children. Image B shows Barack Obama sitting at a desk with a couple of elementary school students.\" width=\"975\" height=\"344\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Lady Bird Johnson, the First Lady, reads to students enrolled in Head Start (a) at the Kemper School in Washington, DC, on March 19, 1966. President Obama visits a Head Start classroom (b) in Lawrence, Kansas, on January 22, 2015.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758442026\">While the era of cooperative federalism witnessed a broadening of federal powers in concurrent and state policy domains, it is also the era of a deepening coordination between the states and the federal government in Washington. Nowhere is this clearer than with respect to the social welfare and social insurance programs created during the New Deal and Great Society eras, most of which are administered by both state and federal authorities and are jointly funded. The <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Social Security Act<\/span> of 1935, which created federal subsidies for state-administered programs for the elderly; people with handicaps; dependent mothers; and children, gave state and local officials wide discretion over eligibility and benefit levels. The unemployment insurance program, also created by the Social Security Act, requires states to provide jobless benefits, but it allows them significant latitude to decide the level of tax to impose on businesses in order to fund the program as well as the duration and replacement rate of unemployment benefits. A similar multilevel division of labor governs Medicaid and Children\u2019s Health Insurance.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-035\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Lawrence R. Jacobs and Theda Skocpol. 2014. \u201cProgressive Federalism and the Contested Implemented of Obama\u2019s Health Reform,\u201d In <em>The Politics of Major Policy Reform in Postwar America<\/em>, eds. Jeffrey A. Jenkins and Sidney M. Milkis. New York: Cambridge University Press.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758401855\">Thus, the era of cooperative federalism left two lasting attributes on federalism in the United States. First, a nationalization of politics emerged as a result of federal legislative activism aimed at addressing national problems such as marketplace inefficiencies, social and political inequality, and poverty. The nationalization process expanded the size of the federal administrative apparatus and increased the flow of federal grants to state and local authorities, which have helped offset the financial costs of maintaining a host of New Deal- and Great Society\u2013era programs. The second lasting attribute is the flexibility that states and local authorities were given in the implementation of federal social welfare programs. One consequence of administrative flexibility, however, is that it has led to cross-state differences in the levels of benefits and coverage.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-036\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">R. Kent Weaver. 2000. <em>Ending Welfare as We Know It<\/em>. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758532700\" class=\"bc-section section\">\n<h2>NEW FEDERALISM<\/h2>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758343230\">During the administrations of Presidents Richard <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Nixon<\/span> (1969\u20131974) and Ronald <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Reagan<\/span> (1981\u20131989), attempts were made to reverse the process of nationalization\u2014that is, to restore states\u2019 prominence in policy areas into which the federal government had moved in the past. New federalism is premised on the idea that the decentralization of policies enhances administrative efficiency, reduces overall public spending, and improves policy outcomes. During Nixon\u2019s administration, general revenue sharing programs were created that distributed funds to the state and local governments with minimal restrictions on how the money was spent. The election of Ronald Reagan heralded the advent of a \u201cdevolution revolution\u201d in U.S. federalism, in which the president pledged to return authority to the states according to the Constitution. In the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act<\/span> of 1981, congressional leaders together with President Reagan consolidated numerous federal grant programs related to social welfare and reformulated them in order to give state and local administrators greater discretion in using federal funds.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-037\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Allen Schick. 2007. <em>The Federal Budget<\/em>, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758473620\">However, Reagan\u2019s track record in promoting new federalism was inconsistent. This was partly due to the fact that the president\u2019s devolution agenda met some opposition from Democrats in Congress, moderate Republicans, and interest groups, preventing him from making further advances on that front. For example, his efforts to completely devolve Aid to Families With Dependent Children (a New Deal-era program) and food stamps (a Great Society-era program) to the states were rejected by members of Congress, who feared states would underfund both programs, and by members of the National Governors\u2019 Association, who believed the proposal would be too costly for states. Reagan terminated general revenue sharing in 1986.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-038\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Dilger, \u201cFederal Grants to State and Local Governments,\u201d 30\u201331.<\/div>\n<p>Several Supreme Court rulings also promoted new federalism by hemming in the scope of the national government\u2019s power, especially under the commerce clause. For example, in <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>United States v. Lopez<\/em><\/span>, the court struck down the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Gun-Free School Zones Act<\/span> of 1990, which banned gun possession in school zones.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"rf-039\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>United States v. Lopez<\/em>, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>It argued that the regulation in question did not \u201csubstantively affect interstate commerce.\u201d The ruling ended a nearly sixty-year period in which the court had used a broad interpretation of the commerce clause that by the 1960s allowed it to regulate numerous local commercial activities.<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-040\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">See <em>Printz v. United States<\/em>, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).<\/div>\n<p>However, many would say that the years since the 9\/11 attacks have swung the pendulum back in the direction of central federal power. The creation of the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Department of Homeland Security<\/span> federalized disaster response power in Washington, and the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Transportation Security Administration<\/span> was created to federalize airport security. Broad new federal policies and mandates have also been carried out in the form of the Faith-Based Initiative and <span class=\"no-emphasis\">No Child Left Behind<\/span> (during the George W. Bush administration) and the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Affordable Care Act<\/span> (during Barack Obama\u2019s administration).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758335856\" class=\"note middle-ground\">\n<div class=\"title\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<h3 class=\"title\">Cooperative Federalism versus New Federalism<\/h3>\n<p>Morton <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Grodzins<\/span> coined the cake analogy of federalism in the 1950s while conducting research on the evolution of American federalism. Until then most scholars had thought of federalism as a layer cake, but according to Grodzins the 1930s ushered in \u201cmarble-cake federalism\u201d: \u201cThe American form of government is often, but erroneously, symbolized by a three-layer cake. A far more accurate image is the rainbow or marble cake, characterized by an inseparable mingling of differently colored ingredients, the colors appearing in vertical and diagonal strands and unexpected whirls. As colors are mixed in the marble cake, so functions are mixed in the American federal system.\u201d<\/p>\n<div id=\"rf-041\" class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Morton Grodzins. 2004. \u201cThe Federal System.\u201d In <em>American Government Readings and Cases<\/em>, ed. P. Woll. New York: Pearson Longman, 74\u201378.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"OSC_AmGov_03_02_Cake\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\n<div style=\"width: 835px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2292\/2017\/08\/08162807\/OSC_AmGov_03_02_Cake.jpg\" alt=\"Image depicts federalism as two different types of cake. The first is labeled \u201cPast: Layer Cake Federalism\u201d. The cake has three cleary defined horizontal layers. A label states \u201cprograms and authority are clearly divided among the national, state, and local governments\u201d. The second cake is labeled \u201cPresent: Marble Cake Federalism\u201d. The cake has layers that are all swirled together instead of being cleanly defined by layers. A label states \u201cprograms and authority are mixed among the national, state, and local governments\u201d.\" width=\"825\" height=\"436\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Morton Grodzins, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, coined the expression \u201cmarble-cake federalism\u201d in the 1950s to explain the evolution of federalism in the United States.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758400949\">Cooperative federalism has several merits:<\/p>\n<ul id=\"fs-id1163758425931\">\n<li>Because state and local governments have varying fiscal capacities, the national government\u2019s involvement in state activities such as education, health, and social welfare is necessary to ensure some degree of uniformity in the provision of public services to citizens in richer and poorer states.<\/li>\n<li>The problem of collective action, which dissuades state and local authorities from raising regulatory standards for fear they will be disadvantaged as others lower theirs, is resolved by requiring state and local authorities to meet minimum federal standards (e.g., minimum wage and air quality).<\/li>\n<li>Federal assistance is necessary to ensure state and local programs (e.g., water and air pollution controls) that generate positive externalities are maintained. For example, one state\u2019s environmental regulations impose higher fuel prices on its residents, but the externality of the cleaner air they produce benefits neighboring states. Without the federal government\u2019s support, this state and others like it would underfund such programs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758542978\">New federalism has advantages as well:<\/p>\n<ul id=\"fs-id1163758555909\">\n<li>Because there are economic, demographic, social, and geographical differences among states, one-size-fits-all features of federal laws are suboptimal. Decentralization accommodates the diversity that exists across states.<\/li>\n<li>By virtue of being closer to citizens, state and local authorities are better than federal agencies at discerning the public\u2019s needs.<\/li>\n<li>Decentralized federalism fosters a marketplace of innovative policy ideas as states compete against each other to minimize administrative costs and maximize policy output.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><em>Which model of federalism do you think works best for the United States? Why?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758386728\" class=\"note american government link-to-learning\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">The leading international journal devoted to the practical and theoretical study of federalism is called <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.openstaxcollege.org\/l\/29publius\">Publius: The Journal of Federalism<\/a><\/em>. Find out where its name comes from.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758427521\" class=\"summary\">\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758440314\">Federalism in the United States has gone through several phases of evolution during which the relationship between the federal and state governments has varied. In the era of dual federalism, both levels of government stayed within their own jurisdictional spheres. During the era of cooperative federalism, the federal government became active in policy areas previously handled by the states. The 1970s ushered in an era of new federalism and attempts to decentralize policy management.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"review-questions\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758354612\" class=\"exercise\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758374453\" class=\"problem\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758354612\" class=\"exercise\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758374453\" class=\"problem\">\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758401785\">In <em>McCulloch v. Maryland<\/em>, the Supreme Court invoked which provisions of the constitution?<\/p>\n<ol id=\"fs-id1163758360309\">\n<li>Tenth Amendment and spending clause<\/li>\n<li>commerce clause and supremacy clause<\/li>\n<li>necessary and proper clause and supremacy clause<\/li>\n<li>taxing power and necessary and proper clause<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758500997\" class=\"solution\">\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758436940\">\n<div class=\"qa-wrapper\" style=\"display: block\"><span class=\"show-answer collapsed\" style=\"cursor: pointer\" data-target=\"q293125\">Show Answer<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"q293125\" class=\"hidden-answer\" style=\"display: none\">C<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758505412\" class=\"exercise\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758511184\" class=\"problem\">\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758502895\">Which statement about new federalism is <em>not<\/em> true?<\/p>\n<ol id=\"fs-id1163758509042\">\n<li>New federalism was launched by President Nixon and continued by President Reagan.<\/li>\n<li>New federalism is based on the idea that decentralization of responsibility enhances administrative efficiency.<\/li>\n<li><em>United States v. Lopez<\/em> is a Supreme Court ruling that advanced the logic of new federalism.<\/li>\n<li>President Reagan was able to promote new federalism consistently throughout his administration.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758456379\" class=\"exercise\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758373324\" class=\"problem\">\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Which is <em>not<\/em> a merit of cooperative federalism?<\/p>\n<ol id=\"fs-id1163758379965\">\n<li>Federal cooperation helps mitigate the problem of collective action among states.<\/li>\n<li>Federal assistance encourages state and local governments to generate positive externalities.<\/li>\n<li>Cooperative federalism respects the traditional jurisdictional boundaries between states and federal government.<\/li>\n<li>Federal assistance ensures some degree of uniformity of public services across states.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758304642\" class=\"solution\">\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758374212\">\n<div class=\"qa-wrapper\" style=\"display: block\"><span class=\"show-answer collapsed\" style=\"cursor: pointer\" data-target=\"q309696\">Show Answer<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"q309696\" class=\"hidden-answer\" style=\"display: none\">C<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758539382\" class=\"exercise\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758427036\" class=\"problem\">\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758441906\">What are the main differences between cooperative federalism and dual federalism?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758469849\" class=\"exercise\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758420593\" class=\"problem\">\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758548175\">What were the implications of <em>McCulloch v. Maryland<\/em> for federalism?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758374245\" class=\"solution\">\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758359586\">\n<div class=\"qa-wrapper\" style=\"display: block\"><span class=\"show-answer collapsed\" style=\"cursor: pointer\" data-target=\"q617567\">Show Answer<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"q617567\" class=\"hidden-answer\" style=\"display: none\">The McCulloch decision established the doctrine of implied powers, meaning the federal government can create policy instruments deemed necessary and appropriate to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. The case also affirmed the principle of national supremacy embodied in Article VI of the Constitution, namely, that the Constitution and legitimate federal laws trump state laws.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<h2>Glossary<\/h2>\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163758438545\" class=\"definition\">\n<dt>cooperative federalism<\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163758384325\">a style of federalism in which both levels of government coordinate their actions to solve national problems, leading to the blending of layers as in a marble cake<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163758440864\" class=\"definition\">\n<dt>dual federalism<\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163758510786\">a style of federalism in which the states and national government exercise exclusive authority in distinctly delineated spheres of jurisdiction, creating a layer-cake view of federalism<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163758513993\" class=\"definition\">\n<dt>general revenue sharing<\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163758511463\">a type of federal grant that places minimal restrictions on how state and local governments spend the money<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163758472729\" class=\"definition\">\n<dt>new federalism<\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163758539846\">a style of federalism premised on the idea that the decentralization of policies enhances administrative efficiency, reduces overall public spending, and improves outcomes<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163758401851\" class=\"definition\">\n<dt>nullification<\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163758409114\">a doctrine promoted by John Calhoun of South Carolina in the 1830s, asserting that if a state deems a federal law unconstitutional, it can nullify it within its borders<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t <section class=\"citations-section\" role=\"contentinfo\">\n\t\t\t <h3>Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t <div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t <div id=\"citation-list-79\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t <div class=\"licensing\"><div class=\"license-attribution-dropdown-subheading\">CC licensed content, Shared previously<\/div><ul class=\"citation-list\"><li>OpenStax American Government. <strong>Provided by<\/strong>: OpenStax CNX. <strong>Located at<\/strong>: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/cnx.org\/contents\/5bcc0e59-7345-421d-8507-a1e4608685e8@18.14\">http:\/\/cnx.org\/contents\/5bcc0e59-7345-421d-8507-a1e4608685e8@18.14<\/a>. <strong>License<\/strong>: <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"license\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/\">CC BY: Attribution<\/a><\/em>. <strong>License Terms<\/strong>: Download for free at http:\/\/cnx.org\/contents\/5bcc0e59-7345-421d-8507-a1e4608685e8@18.14<\/li><\/ul><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\t\t\t <\/section>","protected":false},"author":17533,"menu_order":3,"template":"","meta":{"_candela_citation":"[{\"type\":\"cc\",\"description\":\"OpenStax American Government\",\"author\":\"\",\"organization\":\"OpenStax CNX\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/cnx.org\/contents\/5bcc0e59-7345-421d-8507-a1e4608685e8@18.14\",\"project\":\"\",\"license\":\"cc-by\",\"license_terms\":\"Download for free at http:\/\/cnx.org\/contents\/5bcc0e59-7345-421d-8507-a1e4608685e8@18.14\"}]","CANDELA_OUTCOMES_GUID":"","pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":"cc-by"},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[50],"class_list":["post-79","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","license-cc-by"],"part":64,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/79","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17533"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/79\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":811,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/79\/revisions\/811"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/64"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/79\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=79"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=79"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=79"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}