GOVT 2305 Internet Unit 2 P4

Federalism and the “Living Constitution”

The Constitution contains deliberate ambiguities that allow government and constitutional interpretation to adapt as people’s needs change. The Supreme Court is the final authority on constitutional disputes: it interprets the Constitution and decides how it applies.

Federalism—the distribution of power among the national government, states, and localities—has shifted over time. Court decisions, economic crises, legislation, and constitutional amendments have all influenced which level of government has greater authority.

Periods in the History of Federalism

1. National Supremacy (1801–1835)

Under Chief Justice John Marshall, the Supreme Court generally favored national authority over state power.

• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

  • Congress created a national bank using its enumerated fiscal powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
  • The Court upheld Congress’s authority to create the bank, recognizing implied powers: Congress may use appropriate means to carry out powers granted by the Constitution.
  • Maryland could not tax the bank. The Court reasoned that the power to tax could become the power to destroy, and states could not interfere with federal operations.

• Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

  • The dispute concerned competing state and federal licenses for ferry service between New York and New Jersey.
  • The Court interpreted interstate commerce broadly to include the movement of people as well as goods.
  • Because the ferry route crossed state lines, federal authority governed, and the federal license prevailed.

2. Dual Federalism and States’ Rights

Under Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court placed greater emphasis on state power and treated states as having authority equal to the national government.

• Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
  • Dred Scott argued that living in territory designated as free under the Missouri Compromise should make him free.
  • The Court ruled that Black people, as understood in the decision, were not U.S. citizens entitled to sue in federal court. It also held that Congress lacked authority to prohibit slavery in the territories, invalidating the Missouri Compromise.
  • The lecture presents the decision as an example of a narrow reading of federal power and a blow to national authority.

The Civil War established national military supremacy, but the Court’s views changed more slowly.

• Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
  • The Court upheld racial segregation under the doctrine of “separate but equal.”
  • The lecture describes the ruling as relying on state police powers and illustrating the continued influence of dual federalism.

3. Constitutional Amendments as a Way to Change the Balance

The lecture explains that constitutional amendments can limit the Court’s ability to maintain an older interpretation of federal power.

• The 16th Amendment authorized a federal income tax after the Court had rejected an income-tax law.
• The 17th Amendment established direct election of U.S. senators, replacing selection by state legislatures.

4. Cooperative Federalism and the New Deal

The Great Depression shifted public expectations toward the national government. As unemployment and bank failures worsened, people looked to Washington for help. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress responded with New Deal programs.

• The Supreme Court initially struck down some New Deal measures, including the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
• Roosevelt proposed a “court-packing” plan that would have allowed him to add justices to the Supreme Court. Congress rejected the plan.
• The controversy, along with changes in the Court’s membership over time, accompanied a shift toward greater acceptance of national programs. The lecture identifies this period as cooperative federalism, while emphasizing that national power expanded substantially.

5. Federal Grants and the Growth of National Spending

Federal money often returns to states through grants, which can influence what states do and how much discretion they have.

• Categorical grants provide money for a specific program or project and come with detailed rules about how it must be spent.
  • Matching grants require the state to contribute a share alongside federal funding.
  • Equalization grants account for differences in states’ resources, allowing less wealthy states to contribute a smaller share.

The lecture gives spending figures to show the shift toward national-level spending:

• Before the Great Depression, local governments accounted for about 60% of governmental spending and the federal government about 17%.
• By 1939, local spending was about 30% and federal spending about 47%.
• By 1997, local spending was about 15%, while federal spending exceeded 66%.

6. New Federalism and Devolution

New federalism, advocated by presidents including Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, sought to return authority to states and localities. This transfer of power downward is called devolution.

• Block grants provide states with larger sums of money for broad purposes, such as transportation, rather than tightly specifying a particular project.

  • The intended benefit is greater state flexibility to choose how funds address local needs.
  • The lecture notes that Reagan converted 77 categorical grants into nine block grants in 1981.

• Mandates are federal requirements that states or localities must follow. Some establish protections, such as minimum water-purity standards or accessibility requirements for public buildings.

• Unfunded mandates require state or local governments to comply without providing federal money, potentially consuming a significant portion of local budgets.

  • The 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act required the Congressional Budget Office to flag mandates estimated to cost more than $50 million.
  • The lecture says this measure did little to stop unfunded mandates and cites No Child Left Behind as a significant burden for states and school districts.

Overall Lesson

Federalism is not fixed: authority moves back and forth between the national government and states and localities. Economic crises can increase reliance on the national government, while political movements may push power back toward the states. The lecture presents this ebb and flow as a feature of a flexible system designed to adapt over time, with compromise at its core.

Speakers and Sources Featured

• Speaker: Professor Mary Linder, the lecturer.
• Supreme Court cases discussed: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).
• Other sources, laws, and events discussed: the Necessary and Proper Clause; the Missouri Compromise; the 16th and 17th Amendments; the Great Depression and New Deal; the National Industrial Recovery Act; the Agricultural Adjustment Act; Social Security; the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and No Child Left Behind.