Chapter 4: Federalism

A discussion of American federalism leads to a search for metaphors that help explain the often perplexing division of power between national and state and local governments. The initial conception of federalism as two or more governments exercising power and authority over the same people in the same territory gave rise to the Madisonian assumption that the national government would concern itself with "the great and aggregate interests," whereas state governments would attend to "local and particular" matters. The adoption of a federal system of government was seen as a solution to the problem of diversity and heterogeneity and the attendant political maneuvering confronting the young nation.

Selection of this type of political system also led to two contradictory interpretations or myths of what federalism was envisioned to be. The supremacy of states' rights is the major focus of dual federalism. From this perspective, the Constitution is a compact between sovereign states. Dual federalism views states as powerful components of the federal system. The two levels of government operate on different tracks and each is in control of its own activities. From the perspective of cooperative federalism, the Constitution represents an agreement made by the people who are citizens of both the state and the nation. This view of federalism envisions the states and the national government as intertwined, rather than as acting in separate spheres.

The constitutional sections that ignite the federalism debate are Article I, Section 8, which enumerates the powers allotted to Congress and includes the necessary-and-proper or elastic clause, and the Tenth Amendment, which says that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It is from the elastic clause that the concept of implied powers, those powers not spelled out but expected to be asserted by the national government to carry out its enumerated responsibilities, was derived and defended as essential because the framers of the Constitution could not anticipate all the powers needed by a new nation and its government. States' rights advocates interpreted the Tenth Amendment as placing firm limits on the scope of national government.

An analysis of federalism that focuses primarily on formal constitutional authority would be misleading because the actual balance between national and state powers has always been largely a matter of practical politics. The national government has assumed a far greater role than early politicians would ever have imagined. This shift of power has come about through constitutional amendments, legislative mandates and incentives, and judicial interpretation.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the national government took on a new task: the promotion of social equality through the diminution of racism and poverty. The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, further limited states' rights that had been used to deny equality for minority citizens. President Johnson's War on Poverty, with its surge of social legislation, increased the scope of the national government, augmented national and state bureaucracies, and created new power centers by giving aid directly to local governments and community groups. The Warren Court, with its civil rights and reapportionment decisions, was also instrumental in affirming the national government as the major power source.

The growth of national government programs aimed both at state and local levels has led to charges of a federal system that is overresponsive to interest groups, unmanageable, unaccountable, and excessive in cost‹a pluralist nightmare, some would argue.
In recent years, both Republican and Democratic presidents have come into office promising to reduce the federal bureaucracy and return power to the states. However, despite presidential promises, Congress continues to place demands on states and localities. Under the powers of preemption, Congress enacts laws that encroach upon state authority. Through both mandates (funded and unfunded) and restraints, Congress can require states to accept its decisions.

Contemporary federalism has evolved from New Federalism to New Age Federalism, in which Washington encourages states to explore new options yet ultimately imposes federal solutions on problems. One continuing issue for federalism is the cost of programs; most states do not have the resources to provide for all the programs mandated at the state, local, and federal levels.