History Response

2/18/18, 8'00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics

Page 1 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/

Katrina’s Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics By Dara Strolovitch; Dorian Warren; Paul Frymer Published on: Jun 11, 2006

Dara Strolovitch is assistant professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. She has been a research fellow at the Brookings Institution and a visiting faculty fellow at Georgetown's Center for Democracy and the Third Sector. Her research and teaching focus on interest groups and social movements, and politics of race, class, gender, and sexuality.

Dorian Warren is a post-doctoral scholar at the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy. He specializes in the study of inequality and the politics of marginalized groups in American politics.

Paul Frymer is associate professor of politics and legal studies at UC Santa Cruz. He is the author of Uneasy Alliances: Race and Party Competition in America (Princeton Press) and is currently writing about race and labor in the twentieth century.

In the public imagination, natural disasters do not discriminate, but are instead “equal opportunity” calamities. Hurricanes may not single out victims by their race, class, or gender, but neither do such disasters occur in historical, political, social, or economic vacuums. Instead, the consequences of such catastrophes replicate and exacerbate the effects of extant inequalities, and often bring into stark relief the importance of political institutions, processes, ideologies, and norms. In the words of New York Times’ columnist David Brooks, storms like hurricane Katrina “wash away the surface of society, the settled way things have been done. They expose the underlying power structures, the injustices, the patterns of corruption and the unacknowledged inequalities.”

Katrina hit the Gulf Coast just as America prepared to mark the fourth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and consequently, the fourth anniversary of the American government’s quest to bring American-style freedom and democracy to other nations. The hurricane made clear, however, that the U.S. has not resolved fundamental domestic disparities and inadequacies. Katrina did not create these inequities; it simply added an important reminder that they are deeply embedded and constitutive of American political, economic, and social life. From the voting rights violations of 2000, to the vast disparities in drug laws that have resulted in the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of young African-American and Latino men, to the continued widening of racial and wealth gaps when it comes to finances, education, and health services, the last two decades alone have provided a series of examples that demonstrate the vast inequalities of our democratic system, particularly as they are manifested along racial lines. Were Katrina simply an accident of geography and ecology, we could perhaps be sanguine that its effects might be resolved. But the disparities exposed by Katrina have deep-seated, historical and institutional roots. While it is therefore unlikely that public policies in the aftermath of Katrina will resolve these disparities, perhaps the inequalities laid bare by the hurricane will provide a longer-term

2/18/18, 8'00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics

Page 2 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/

The Political Roots of Race and Class Inequality in New Orleans

wake-up call to those who wish to actively build a more fair and meaningful democracy in the United States. In particular, we hope that new attention will be paid to the role of American political institutions in structuring and perpetuating contemporary racial, economic, regional, and gendered inequities.

Storms and natural disasters such as Katrina always hit marginal groups in society harder than they do other segments. Women, many of whom were primary caregivers for their children, were vastly over- represented among those in New Orleans’ shelters, reflecting not only the gendered norms of family relations, but the glaring statistical fact that women in America are more likely to live below the poverty line. Similarly, the elderly and disabled faced some of the most severe horrors of Katrina, again in part because they constitute a disproportionately high percentage of those who are impoverished, and because too many were simply left to die in the face of rushing water due to the difficulties in rescuing them. It was the compounded effects of the intersection of race and class inequalities, however, that was brought most visibly to the fore by the national and international media in the days following Katrina. Quite notably, President Bush, who had first resisted acknowledging the disproportionate impact of Katrina on low-income and black residents of New Orleans, finally felt compelled to recognize “the legacy of inequality.” The evidence of the centrality of racial and class inequalities is overwhelming, as evidenced by Kanye West’s impassioned comments on television as well as by the fact that the topic became one of discussion in such unlikely outlets as FOX news and the Rush Limbaugh show. By now, we have all heard the damning statistics about the demographics of New Orleans residents so devastated by Katrina: 67% are African American, 28% live below the poverty line (of whom 84% are black), 100,000 had no car, and therefore had no ability to flee the city when the storm hit.

Although jarring, these statistics can only be shocking to those who have willingly ignored systematic evidence of what former Senator and vice presidential candidate John Edwards topically called the “two Americas.” Edwards may not have specifically mentioned race during his popular campaign stump speech, but social scientists and political activists have long tried to draw the nation’s attention to the scope of racialized (and gendered) poverty in the United States, particularly in the South. It is no accident that African Americans in New Orleans are disproportionately poor, or that a disproportionate number of the poor in New Orleans are African American. It is the result of centuries of concerted decision-making by political actors at the local, state, and national levels, going back to the days of slavery and continuing up to our current political moment.1 Highlighting the roles of race and class in attitudes about and identities of those most affected by the aftermath of Katrina draws attention to the ways in which these divisions have played an historically significant role in conflicts about the proper relationship between local, state, and federal governments in American politics. Though many in the media focused on the failed political response in the immediate aftermath or Katrina, little attention was given to the long-term effects of weakened government capacity and its core functions in providing aid, services, and jobs to impoverished urban communities, as well as the historical role of race as a causal factor that has shaped these intergovernmental relations.

2/18/18, 8'00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics

Page 3 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/

Race has always been central to debates about the proper role of the American government in aiding those Americans in need of assistance from the inequalities that result directly from the actions of both the government and private citizens. Whether the national government should have the capacity to intervene into local affairs was an issue of primary importance at the nation’s naissance. At the time, race and labor—specifically debates about the slave trade, about the maintenance and expansion of slavery into American territories, and about the status of blacks more generally—were the sine qua non of the conflicts between federalists and anti-federalists at the founding of the nation. Southern political elites argued that the federal government should have no authority over the governance of local institutions and culture; these arguments were constitutionally protected in the 10th Amendment. Pointing to the guarantee of “states’ rights,” southern states resisted all attempts to abolish slavery, resulting in the secession of eleven states—including Louisiana—from the nation in 1860.

The Civil War prompted by this secession did not end race-inspired conflicts over federalism. Following the defeat of Confederate forces, the national government used its power to expand rights and resources for blacks primarily through the Freedmen’s Bureau. Its task was to coordinate relief efforts and redistribute educational, employment and political opportunities among newly freed and homeless former slaves, as well as to whites who had been dislocated by the war. With the help of the Freedmen’s Bureau and the protection of federal troops, African Americans acquired land, sought employment, voted in large numbers, served as elected officials, and used public accommodations in the years following the war. Most southern whites resented the federal presence and resisted efforts to equalize the status of former slaves. President Andrew Johnson vetoed congressional renewal of the Bureau in 1866, and undercut its efforts by restoring most land to its former white owners. As the ex-Confederate states rejoined the Union, Congress further curtailed the agency’s power and personnel, and it finally ceased operations in 1872. Five years later, the Hayes-Tilden compromise led to the withdrawal of federal troops, effectively ending all Reconstruction efforts in the South, sealing the fate of the vast majority of African Americans for generations and ushering in a new era of racial and class inequality. Southern states, with little federal resistance, enacted “Jim Crow” laws that segregated public spaces, curtailed voting rights, and reestablished white political, economic, and social supremacy.

But debates over federalism returned during the Great Depression, leading both to an emboldened national government with power to interfere on matters of interstate commerce to mold social policy, and at the same time, a recognition that states’ rights would limit the New Deal’s intervention into the southern economy and political hierarchy. These political battles, in which the federal government won certain powers with an explicit compromise that it would not threaten southern institutions, set America on a path-dependent course towards a vastly curtailed welfare state and one that differentiated on the basis of race. To obtain the necessary support of southern Democrats in Congress for his legislative agenda, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and northern Democrats agreed to a series of measures that codified racial inequities into policy. Critical legislation such as the Wagner Act and Social Security Act did not cover workers in occupations commonly filled by blacks, such as agricultural and domestic workers, and enabled private and local actors to discriminate in their enactments and interpretations of the policies. Approximately two thirds of black workers were not initially covered by critical pieces of

2/18/18, 8'00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics

Page 4 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/

New Deal legislation, at a time when 50 percent of blacks were unemployed, a proportion twice that of whites. Consequently, while black Americans benefited in some ways from the New Deal, the policies were severely limited in reach and, in many instances, served to systematically create racial segregation and poverty in communities such as New Orleans. Labor laws and construction grants allowed unions to exclude black workers through closed shops and contracts, the Federal Housing Act allowed banks and home lenders to “redline” their home and business loan policies to exclude black communities, and federal welfare laws allowed local governments to make determinations of need and assistance.

Southern states continued to resist federal efforts to combat segregation, discrimination, and the increasing use of terror against blacks in the South well into the 1960s. Faced with civil rights activism, a series of Supreme Court decisions, and critical new federal laws, conditions improved for blacks in the “new south.” But, as Philip Klinkner and Rogers Smith have argued, this moment was brief—the “unsteady march” toward racial equality quickly moved backward. Beginning with President Richard Nixon, the ambitious plan of the Great Society to use federal funds to combat poverty and racial inequality was curtailed. The Supreme Court retracted from its ambitious Equal Protection agenda, instead privileging state and local boundaries that limited policies designed to reduce racial segregation and inequality in employment, schools, and criminal justice. This was often a bipartisan effort, witnessed by President Bill Clinton’s signing of welfare reform that cut federal funding sharply to those in need of assistance. The legacies of racial and economic inequality, from slavery and segregation to the exclusionary nature of federal aid, remain evident in every Southern state. Racial disparities in Louisiana and New Orleans are certainly more extreme than they are in other states, but racial inequality prevails in the former Confederacy, in no small part because of the ongoing invocation of states’ rights to justify unequal treatment and to resist federal attempts to intervene.

It is important to recognize, however, that while states’ rights arguments have been used historically to undergird southern racial and class inequalities, they have been invoked inconsistently. Like most political ideologies in American politics, states’ rights is much less a fundamental and enduring principle than a political foil that has been deployed opportunistically by political elites to advance their interests and agenda. Southern conservatives have often invoked states’ rights to resist federal intervention, but they have also been quick to disregard this principle when it has suited their needs, as they did earlier this year when asking Congress to overrule a state court that allowed the removal of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube. Such inconsistency has historical roots that make clear that southern invocations of the 10th Amendment have more to do with protecting their power than they do with concerns about states’ rights. While many southern states endorsed the 10th Amendment during constitutional debates, they also supported the Commerce Clause and the Full Faith and Credit provisions of the Constitution—both strongly anti-state rights—in order to stop northern states from taxing their products that were made with slave labor, and as a way of legally demanding the return of slaves who escaped to northern free states.

Federalism then, may be a center of the debate, but it provides a smoke screen more than a concrete barrier to political reform. The reason federalism debates are so powerful is because our national

2/18/18, 8'00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics

Page 5 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/

American (Lack of) Recognition of History and Structural Inequality

political institutions are fundamentally divided over race, a division that is as old as the nation itself. To maintain racial hierarchies, southern Democrats and racial conservatives consistently invoke states rights when it suits them. These interests, while a minority in American society, have always been important pivots and veto players in the national political arena. Because our political institutions, such as the Senate, the Electoral College, and the party system, are unduly beholden to these pivotal votes, federal distinctions remain politically meaningful at a time when many scholars have argued that they are antiquated and artificial. It is for this reason that even those political actors who support the expansion of racial and economic justice have had to make political calculations that work against such goals. This is perhaps most notable in the way that the two party system has been affected by the pivotal role of the South. With brief exceptions, the two major political parties have been equal opportunity ignorers of racial inequality going back to their formation in the 1820s. To win elections, parties need to appeal to southern whites and racially conservative voters. Democrats as much as Republicans are vividly aware of this, as the actions of national candidates from Bill Clinton to Al Gore to John Kerry have emphatically illustrated. The poor in New Orleans only entered our television screens with Katrina, in part because no major party presidential nominee has made race or poverty a campaign issue in almost four decades.

Fifty years after Louis Hartz remarked that Americans were “born equal” and that, as a result, they have no sense or interest in history or the broader development of ideas and inequities, it is not surprising that the American response to New Orleans was viewed through an exceedingly narrow lens. Most Americans were shocked by New Orleans and our media reflected this with pictures of the faces of inequality capped with headings ending with question marks—How did this happen? Where did this inequality come from? Who is to blame? The sense of wonderment is held only by some segments of the American population, however. As is the case with many other issues, race has been the critical variable in determining Americans’ perceptions and attitudes about Katrina’s aftermath, and about the way it was handled by the government.

The American public is sharply divided along racial lines in its assessments of George Bush’s efforts to help Katrina’s victims. Data from a recent poll by the Pew Research Center show that many more African Americans (85%) than whites (63%) believe that President Bush did not do “all he could to get relief efforts going quickly.” Moreover, race also has also shaped perceptions about why the response was as slow and inadequate as it was. The poll results suggest that a vast majority of African Americans, but very few whites, agree with hip-hop artist Kanye West’s charge that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” and that America is set up “to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slow as possible.” Echoing West’s sentiments, the Pew poll found that two-thirds of blacks (66%) agreed that the government response to the hurricane would have been faster if “most of the victims had been white,” compared to less than one-fifth (17 percent) of whites.2

The disjuncture between white and black attitudes on this question is illuminating not only for the

2/18/18, 8'00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics

Page 6 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/

wideness of the racial gap in responses, but also because the responses tell us about each group’s understanding of the way in which race and racism structured individuals’ experiences of and the government’s response to the hurricane. For white respondents, the question seemed to ask whether overt racism had led the government to intentionally ignore black residents of New Orleans, leaving them to suffer on purpose. This understanding is captured in First Lady Laura Bush’s denunciation of West’s allegations as “disgusting,” and her statement that “President Bush cares about everyone in our country.” Within this line of reasoning, unless President Bush, Michael Brown, and the Louisiana National Guard had made explicit decisions to avoid helping or rescuing black victims of the hurricane, no racial discrimination would have occurred.

For black respondents, however, the question was much broader, and far more subtle. Though not disconnected from concerns about negative feelings about black people, intentional acts of discrimination by individuals and government agencies and from the facts of the hurricane itself, black responses are embedded within an understanding of what social theorists call structural racism. From this perspective, the racialized impact of Katrina, though clearly more severe than anything in recent memory, was nothing new but was instead yet another chapter in a long history in which the needs of blacks have been ignored, and in which seemingly race-neutral policies have actually been very specifically designed to disadvantage them, whether through provisions that excluded black workers from social welfare protections or the use of “redlining” and other techniques that served to exclude black Americans from government subsidies. Had anyone really been concerned about African Americans and other poor residents of New Orleans, they would have anticipated the fact that many did not own cars and would have arranged for transportation to help them leave the city as the storm approached. (Although it should be noted that public officials have ignored just about every warning by scientists, academics, and journalists of the impending disaster in New Orleans. Just last year, Mike Davis forecasted exactly this chain of events in an article in Mother Jones magazine and his broader books on ecological disasters, blaming directly government officials who have promoted harmful policies for short-term benefit. A similarly prescient article appeared on the front page of the New Orleans Times-Picayune only 3 years ago.) Instead, the plight of these residents was not even on the President’s radar screen. Low-income and poor people always suffer more when disaster hits. Eric Klinenberg’s recent book on the Chicago heat wave of 1995 shows the myriad ways in which African Americans suffered most extensively from the record temperatures because of worse housing conditions, less access to medical facilities, less attention by police, fire, and paramedics, and less urban infrastructure designed to handle such emergencies. As the old axiom goes, “when America sneezes, black people get pneumonia.”

In this sense, the experience of African Americans in New Orleans can serve as the “miner’s canary,” as Lani Guinier and Gerald Torres argue. Similar to the way in which canaries alerted miners to the specter of poisonous air, the fates that befall people who are disadvantaged by inequalities based on, for example, race, class, and gender, are signifiers of society-wide inequalities. If policymakers and the public heed the lessons of Katrina and make efforts to address the structural and institutional sources of American inequality, perhaps the brunt of future disasters will not be borne by those who are the least

2/18/18, 8'00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics

Page 7 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/

Endnotes

able to endure their costs.

1 While these decisions have had disproportionate effects on African Americans in the southern states, the exploitation of racial animosity also undermined the possibility of a comprehensive safety net that would have benefited white poor and working-class southerners as well.

2 In addition to structuring responses, the immediate widespread reports by the media of gang violence, mass rapes, and looting hearken back to similar tall tales about African American mayhem in the aftermath of the civil war, the Chicago Fire, and the River Rouge Strike. Barbara Bush’s callousness towards those suffering in relief centers similarly stems from embedded stereotypes of African American cultural deficiencies when it comes to work ethic and responsibility.

9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com

Page 1 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print

A Healthy Dose of Anarchy After Katrina, nontraditional, decentralized relief steps in where big government and big charity failed. Neille Ilel | Dec. 11, 2006 11:54 am

When I walked into Rose and Gary Singletary's house in the black, middle-class Gentilly section of New Orleans in February, I saw the shell of a building. The floors, the walls, and all the fixtures —toilets, sinks, doors—had been removed. Floodwater from Hurricane Katrina had reached higher than the Singletarys' front door, and their home had to be stripped down to the frame to bleach out the mold. After months of on-again, off-again work, the house was finally ready to be rebuilt.

The couple had all but given up on getting any more than the $2,000 they had received from their insurance company. They had been insured under a state initiative called the Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, administered by the American International Group. According to Americans for Insurance Reform and other watchdog groups—not to mention several class action suits—the group paid out $2,000 "advances" to its policy holders and then effectively disappeared through tactics such as not answering calls, constantly changing adjusters, and conflating wind/storm damage (covered) with flooding (not covered).

But the Singletarys were beaming. Nearly six months after the hurricane hit, their house was miles ahead of any others in the neighborhood. It got that way not with conventional charity or insurance, nor with government aid, but with a ragtag crew of amateurs. Were it not for a rotating group of young volunteers, the house probably would have been in the same state as those surrounding it: empty, only superficially cleaned, and growing more mold by the day.

"They're a godsend," Rose gushed. "You'll find everybody down at Common Ground. They've got lawyers, child care, computers with Internet."

Two giant spray-painted signs point to the Common Ground Collective's headquarters in a church parking lot in the now infamous Ninth Ward, where the group houses its volunteers, takes names for house gutting, and gives away bleach, buckets, respirators, canned food, and other

9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com

Page 2 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print

supplies. The collective was founded in the wake of Hurricane Katrina by a former Black Panther and some street medics trained at mass protests.

Like most residents I talked to, the Singletarys had seen little of the Red Cross aside from an occasional food truck, and they evinced nothing but frustration when I mentioned the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It was a major coup that seven men from the city had actually arrived to pick up debris from their house on the day I visited. Of the seven, four were dedicated solely to detouring nonexistent traffic.

The Red Cross and FEMA are under serious scrutiny for their mishandling of Katrina's aftermath. In addition to a very public failure to manage the immediate flooding crisis, FEMA has been skewered in a recent Department of Homeland Security inspector general's report, in its own internal audit, and in private and public conversations along the Gulf Coast. The inspector general's report faulted the agency for poor communication, lack of preparedness, and inadequate staffing. FEMA's emergency housing program, which includes expensive cruise ships and trailers that cost $30,000 apiece, is fraught with inefficiency and waste.

The Red Cross is widely thought to have performed better than FEMA, but it's on the ropes too. At the request of the aid organization, the FBI recently took charge of an investigation involving volunteers who misappropriated millions meant for victims of Hurricane Katrina. A March New York Times report revealed major gaps in the organization's system of accountability. Red Cross officials have acknowledged that their reaction in the storm's aftermath was inadequate, and that tensions, possibly race-based, have sometimes emerged between its volunteers and the residents.

Against this backdrop of failure, successes stand out starkly. Perhaps the most obvious mistake made in the institutional response to Katrina was a failure to innovate, to ignore the old rules and procedures when they stood in the way of helping residents in need. Individual citizens, church groups, and a new brand of grassroots relief organizations stepped in to fill the gaps. These grassroots groups dispense with bureaucracy and government aid. They rely instead on small donations of money and supplies, and the commitment of on-the-ground volunteers and the communities they serve. In addition to Common Ground, secular organizations such as Emergency Communities, the People's Hurricane Relief Fund, and Four Directions have joined a multitude of small church groups in the region to provide services where government and big aid organizations fell short. When necessary, they simply ignored the authorities' wrongheaded decisions: pushing supplies through closed checkpoints, setting up in unapproved areas, breaking the rules when it made more sense than following them.

9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com

Page 3 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print

Their organizers, as well as their volunteers, have little experience with relief work. They live in tents or sleep on cots in repurposed churches and community centers. Volunteers run the gamut from hippie dropouts to middle-class students on spring break, and the outposts they've built are filled with things you'd never expect to see anywhere near a relief effort: free acupuncture, vegetarian cooking, cross-dressing volunteers, a giant geodesic dome. Despite their inexperience and occasional outlandishness, they are organizing and delivering some of the most effective relief work in the area.

They aren't a complete solution to the problem. But they have complemented and sometimes superseded other efforts, and the old-time charities are starting to take respectful notice of their unusual new colleagues.

Acupuncturists Without Borders

I first heard about Common Ground in an email from my friend Jeff, a New York bohemian who frequented underground art parties and halfway legal street events. It's fair to say that many of the people who organized and attended those events were of a type. They had odd jobs and even odder side projects; they made their own clothes, and it showed. And they threw really good parties.

So when I learned some of the same people were helping organize a relief project in New Orleans, I was both fascinated and skeptical. When I poked around further and learned that many were alumni of Burning Man and the Rainbow Gathering, two of the nation's biggest, strangest counterculture festivals, I was even more fascinated and even more skeptical. Could a bunch of middle- and upper-middle-class kids, many of them fresh from "alternative" experiences, connect with poor, churchgoing residents of the South? And if they could, would the experiment affect more than a handful of residents?

To my surprise, the answers were yes and yes. As I watched these groups in action, it became clear that they were connecting with the locals and that their services were invaluable. Residents used words like "heaven-sent" and "angels" when describing the volunteers, even the guy serving food in a cowboy hat and a dress.

Common Ground's initial incarnation was a medical clinic in an Algiers mosque. Algiers is a decidedly poor and drab cousin to the rest of New Orleans; it's hard to believe that its sprawl of nondescript homes and apartment buildings is just across the Mississippi River from the French

9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com

Page 4 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print

Quarter. But unlike the city across the river, Algiers didn't flood. And within a few days of the storm, several young men on bicycles started knocking on doors in this unremarkable place, asking if people needed medical help. They called themselves street medics.

"A street medic," explains Iggy River, a Common Ground volunteer, "is a person with an indeterminate amount of knowledge, usually from mass gatherings or street protests, of acute need first aid"—treatment for dehydration, cuts, broken bones. With his dark disheveled hair and giant wooden ear spools, Iggy looked like he would be more at home at a World Trade Organization protest than coordinating supplies in the ruins of a poor black neighborhood. Indeed, it was for such protests that the street medics learned their craft. After Katrina, street medics provided first aid and basic medical services such as blood pressure and diabetes testing.

The renegade volunteers soon ran into Malik Rahim, a neighborhood activist and former Black Panther, and Common Ground was born. By the time I visited, the group's clinic had moved into a permanent storefront location and was staffed by three motherly receptionists, two acupuncturists, and one overworked doctor. The acupuncturists hailed from Acupuncturists Without Borders, one of the more curious groups founded after Katrina. To accommodate medical volunteers from all over the country, the state of Louisiana allowed out-of-state practitioners to provide treatment without a Louisiana license. The acupuncturists fell under that umbrella.

In the clinic's waiting room a man with diabetes waited for acupuncture with his wife. Since the hurricane, Dennis Waits had come back to his job as a furniture restorer. But because only two of his colleagues also returned to work, the company was cut from its health insurance program. Waits, a solidly-built, middle-aged white man in a work shirt, did not look like an adherent of alternative medicine. But his diabetes had led to a condition called nephrotic syndrome that caused painful swelling in his legs and feet. It wasn't easy for him to swallow his pride and get care from a free clinic, but he was up to two shots of cortisone a day, and it was wearing off after a few hours. In any case, he wasn't afraid to have needles put into his wrists.

'You're Seeing Life Here'

Waveland, Mississippi, is one of those small Gulf Coast towns that wasn't covered much by the national media but suffered Katrina's winds and storm surge as much as anyplace else. It's also where a band of hippies from the Rainbow Gathering landed just after the storm. "Waveland was as far as you could go then," said David Sayotovich, a tall, skinny 51-year-old who has been

9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com

Page 5 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print

attending Rainbow Gatherings since the 1980s.

Every year, usually in July, a group of like-minded folks get together for a week or so in a national forest to honor the ideals of peace, love, and cooperation. Begun in 1972, the Rainbow Gathering is an institution of the American counterculture; it brought an estimated 15,000 participants to the Routt National Forest for its annual gathering this year, according to the Denver Post. Most people associate the group with drumming and smoking pot, but the group also manages to cook and serve meals for a large number of people with no running water and no electricity. To people like Sayotovich, it was a no-brainer to use those skills to help people hurt by Katrina.

With encouragement from a local church group, a Rainbow busload of volunteers decamped in Waveland, pitched tents across from the police station, and started serving hot meals to the displaced. "The FEMA people said, 'You can't do this—it's not in the manual,' but we got away with it," Sayotovich said with a grin.

Dubbed the New Waveland Café, the operation didn't just feed residents. It encouraged them to participate in cooking, cleaning, and other details that went into running the aid effort, transforming the helped into helpers. Tales of how the residents of this small Southern town took to a group of hippies reached as far as the Chicago Tribune, which reported that the group ran its kitchen so well that one Red Cross volunteer quit to join them instead. The Gambit, a New Orleans alt-weekly, described a police officer looking the other way when the smell of marijuana drifted out of the Rainbow camp.

"You're not just seeing a truck driving around passing out Styrofoam containers of food," said Mark Weiner, taking a dig at the Red Cross. "You're seeing life here." Behind him a 40-foot geodesic dome—a tent repurposed from the 35,000-person Burning Man art festival in Nevada— was beginning to fill with the day's lunch crowd. The 23-year-old Weiner is a founder and executive director of the nonprofit Emergency Communities, which set up shop in the parking lot of what once was Finish Line Off-Track Betting in storm-ravaged St. Bernard Parish, just east of New Orleans. There it operated the Made With Love Café and other assorted services, including a clothing swap, Internet terminals, and a children's play area.

Weiner had never run an aid organization before. He hadn't really run anything before, which was at once obvious and hard to believe. His phone rang constantly. Young volunteers ran up with questions at a sustained clip. Weiner accommodated every request with answers that seemed to be pulled out of the air: "Sounds great." "Whatever you think is best." "Totally." It

9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com

Page 6 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print

sounds like a recipe for chaos, but behind him trays of coconut curry soup were being instantly replenished as the food line emptied into the cafeteria.

A fresh-faced graduate of Columbia University, Weiner was your typical young hipster living in Brooklyn and applying for law school when Katrina hit. Like nearly every volunteer I encountered, he tried to sign up with the Red Cross first. After he registered online, the Red Cross informed him he would have to wait weeks to attend a training session before he could see any action. "Basically," he recalled, "I was impatient."

Then he found out about the New Waveland Café. There he met Scott Ankeny, a 34-year-old magazine publisher who had been at Burning Man when Katrina hit. When the Rainbow kitchen organizers closed shop, the two decided to expand on the Waveland principles by opening a food kitchen in the denser New Orleans area.

They settled on St. Bernard Parish, where the devastation was so complete that some say there may have been only two homes in the area untouched by floodwaters. Weiner and Ankeny estimate that the food kitchen served around 1,400 meals a day to construction workers, relief workers, and residents who came back to rebuild. In February, there were still no restaurants or grocery stores open for miles. For most of the diners at the Made With Love Café, the only other option was eating packaged food brought in from elsewhere. Five months after Katrina, the few Red Cross trucks that had been seen early on weren't coming around anymore.

Nearly all the ingredients at the café were donated directly from companies or individuals who were similarly frustrated with the bureaucracy of the traditional avenues for giving. The café's roots in the Rainbow subculture were on vivid display. Twenty-six-year-old Lali, a slip of a woman in homemade clothes and a giant head wrap, was the "head kitchen mama"; she believed in using as many fresh organic ingredients as possible, which is not ordinarily a priority in the wake of a hurricane.

Lali began volunteering in Waveland with friends from the Rainbow Gathering, going on to set up the St. Bernard Parish operation with Weiner and around a dozen others. "We're looked at as outsiders in the rest of the world," she said. "This is a great opportunity for us to prove ourselves, to be seen in a better light, not to be judged as people who freeload"—a reputation that haunts the hippie Rainbows. The meals at the café were delicious: curried vegetables, roasted organic chicken, homemade apple pie. I tried to eat there whenever possible, as did every resident I talked to.

9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com

Page 7 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print

One of the first principles of Emergency Communities was that anyone was invited to come down and help. "If you're a volunteer and want to come down for two days, we say come on down," Weiner said. "You don't need 'training.' We'll give you two hours of orientation right here." And so behind the tents for eating, cooking, picking up free supplies, and checking email were a hodgepodge of more ramshackle tents connected by a makeshift boardwalk of moving pallets. Volunteers, who ran the gamut from homeschooled high school students to a father-son duo on a bonding weekend, just had to get as far as the New Orleans airport. Emergency Communities housed them, fed them, and put them to work. According to Weiner, 1,400 volunteers came through the camp, and the café served about 160,000 meals to 15,000 residents and workers in the six months it was open. (It's impossible to verify his numbers independently. For that matter, it's impossible to verify the Red Cross' numbers independently.)

Disaster Relief As Civil Disobedience

"The most important thing to remember is that this was a catastrophe rather than a disaster," says E.L. Quarantelli, co-founder of the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware. The Red Cross tried to operate as it has in most American disasters—and that usually works just fine. But this wasn't a typical situation. The relief groups' own headquarters were destroyed, as were local trained workers' homes. You couldn't reliably reach people by phone or email. And when the Red Cross was prevented from going into some areas, by physical hazards or by local authorities, it didn't react like the Rainbows, a group used to operating without the law on its side. It simply turned back.

Quarantelli says it's not unusual to see informal community groups stepping in during a crisis. But traditionally it's religious groups that engage in this sort of decentralized relief. The Mennonites, for example, have been at it so long they've developed a formal organization, the Mennonite Central Committee, which sends workers to disaster areas all over the world. Grassroots relief organizations like Common Ground and Emergency Communities, with no religious affiliation and with members and organizers who are overwhelmingly from outside the community, do not fit the Disaster Research Center's model of what kinds of groups emerge to deal with disasters. Their emergence, Quarantelli allows, can be attributed in part to the Internet, where people who wanted to volunteer could be matched with groups that needed them instantly, without an existing social network such as a church.

Relying extensively on Internet communities like Craigslist and Tribe.net, the volunteer groups are technically savvy; all had wireless networks in their headquarters. Perhaps more significant,

9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com

Page 8 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print

they have a do-it-yourself culture and a concept they call mutual aid. "We take your house, we help you in repairing it. You help us by putting up our volunteers," explained Sundjata Koné, a spokesperson for Common Ground.

In dealing with the disaster's victims, this approach seemed not only natural but also necessary. Most were not used to standing in food lines or asking strangers to come work on their homes for free. They wanted to pitch in.

Take Amie Roberts. She used to cut hair at a St. Bernard salon before it flooded. When she started coming to eat at the Made With Love Café, it didn't take long for her to realize that what was left of the parish citizenry needed somewhere to get their hair cut. She mentioned the idea to the volunteers at the café, and they provided her with a tent and some chairs. She brought her own scissors and a donation can. "I wanted to do it for the residents," she told me while snipping away at the head of a Red Cross worker from Arkansas. By all accounts hers was the only functioning hair salon in the entire parish, attracting dozens of residents, contractors, and relief workers a day.

The term "mutual aid" isn't as touchy-feely as it might initially sound. The Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin advanced the concept in the early 20th century as an argument against the idea that people are naturally inclined to compete against one another. The concept remains popular among radicals today, and some of the relief workers in the area espouse anarchist politics.

When locals trying to rebuild asked Common Ground for help getting the proper permits, the group's policy was to help rebuild, building permits or not. "We're essentially breaking the law," Koné told me, pausing for emphasis. "That's civil disobedience." If it keeps people from living in mold-filled houses, he said, then Common Ground will do it. The logic of the approach became clear to me after I spent weeks trying to get in touch with anyone at the New Orleans Department of Safety and Permits. I was hoping to get the department's reaction to Koné and other critics who called it inefficient and unresponsive to ordinary residents. No one ever returned my calls.

Common Ground's call to action is "Solidarity Not Charity." Its logo features a fist holding a hammer on one side and a medical cross on the other, á la Bolshevik-era posters. Volunteers argue online about whether the group is too authoritarian or not authoritarian enough, whether there are too many anti-oppression workshops or too few. As Owen Thompson, a college student and Common Ground volunteer, has pointed out in the webzine Toward Freedom, it makes sense for New Orleans to be attractive to anarchists right now: Here is a place where government

9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com

Page 9 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print

failed absolutely, and as such it could be the perfect place to argue that government itself is a failure.

Koné was happy to do just that. "They [FEMA and the Red Cross] come in, and they have all the money," he said. "They do much less than we do. And they put their volunteers up at hotels, or on cruise liners. And that's our tax money that FEMA's using for that." Like other organizers, and many locals, he marveled at the money donated to the Red Cross—$2.1 billion at last count—and how little he's seen them do with it. "They pay themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries," he said. "And they claim they're broke!"

Having Trouble Meeting Your Deadline?

Get your assignment on History Response completed on time. avoid delay and – ORDER NOW

Get a 20% Discount

Is It Enough?

The smaller groups' nimbleness deserves a lot of credit for their successes. Allowing residents and victims to shape the services they receive is a necessary part of disaster relief and is done best by small local groups, says Joseph Trainer, projects coordinator at the University of Delaware's Disaster Research Center. The sheer exuberance of creatively organizing to help others is also an important factor. The same naive eagerness that inspires skepticism in some of us is an asset when none of the traditional avenues for getting things done works.

The first time I met Iggy River, the young man who told me what a street medic is, I was sitting in a coffee shop in the Bywater section of New Orleans. He was one of two men in their early 20s whom I overheard talking authoritatively, maybe a little self-importantly, about supplies for a health clinic in Algiers. They spoke with a pride that bordered on giddiness.

That conversation was a sharp contrast with the measured words of the director of the New Orleans chapter of Habitat for Humanity, or the director of the Red Cross chapter, or any representatives of the large, traditional relief and post-disaster recovery organizations that normally claim the authority to perform this type of work. Those people had decades of experience managing crises. They had staffs of volunteers who expected leadership. They reported to national hierarchies and had a brand name to protect. "It's not always wise to accept someone coming through the front door," Quarantelli notes. And with all that money coming through the pipe, it's not hard to see why. But these big groups end up turning away the Young Turks who are ready to ride their bikes around a deserted city with nothing but a hunch that they will find people in need.

In an April interview with NPR, acting Red Cross Director Jack McGuire admitted the

9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com

Page 10 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print

organization had made major mistakes after Katrina, including not reaching out to community groups that were doing some of the best work in the area. The organization promises to implement a "cultural shift" that includes working more closely with grassroots organizations, a tack the institution has historically shied away from. Kay Wilkins, CEO of Red Cross' Southeast Louisiana chapter, called Katrina "the great equalizer" of relief organizations. After its blunders with supplies and volunteers, the Red Cross' reputation as the charity that could do no wrong has been squashed.

"I'll go to any meeting now," Wilkins says. "I work with groups I had never really worked with." While the grassroots groups will gladly take help from the behemoth Red Cross, they emphasize that their lack of hierarchy and take-anyone approach were not merely born of necessity. They worked that way by design.

But couldn't that design have flaws as well? It's one thing to tear down Sheetrock on a house, but the liability issues involved in allowing amateurs to build a house are a lawyer's nightmare—or dream. I asked organizers at both Common Ground and Emergency Communities what protections they had in place to avoid lawsuits from either residents or volunteers. They all answered with the same shrug.

And during hurricane season it's not safe to have volunteers sleeping in Kelty tents in parking lots. In fact, the Made With Love Café closed its makeshift kitchen on June 15, leaving a permanent community center called Camp Hope in its wake. The United Way and the local government asked the café's organizers to start a new food kitchen in neighboring Plaquemines Parish. They served their first meal there on June 1.

Common Ground scaled back its house gutting significantly during the hot summer months and housed more volunteers in more stable structures. The group is turning its attention to more permanent aspects of rebuilding, such as job training for returning residents in the construction and mechanics trades, and workshops on "rebuilding green"—that is, using environmentally sensitive tactics and materials in reconstruction. It's too soon to tell if these grassroots organizations will grow into permanent institutions resembling the big groups they once railed against, or if the spontaneous network of activists will dissipate until the next big disaster. Iggy River, for one, was on his way back home to Maine when we last spoke in June.

For Rose and Gary Singletary, the help Common Ground provided has been invaluable, but in the end it wasn't nearly enough. When I spoke to them again in May, their house looked much like it

9/16/18, 8(37 PMA Healthy Dose of Anarchy – Reason.com

Page 11 of 11https://reason.com/archives/2006/12/11/a-healthy-dose-of-anarchy/print

did when Common Ground volunteers picked up their tools and moved on. "Everything is at a standstill," Rose said. They are still trying to get more help from their homeowner's insurance; more important, the neighborhood's residents aren't sure the levee on the London Avenue Canal will protect their homes from another serious hurricane. Mardi Gras and JazzFest may go on, but a single drive through New Orleans remains breathtaking. The devastation is relentless. "It's a struggle," Rose told me. "You're trying to do something in a year that it took your whole life to do."

The ad hoc efforts of amateurs haven't fixed the devastated Gulf Coast. But neither have the centrally organized efforts of government authorities and traditional aid groups. The large agencies trusted with caring for citizens in their time of greatest need have something to learn from the idealists in New Orleans: Unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures. Rules made when there was electricity don't always work when all the lights are out.

Neille Ilel is a writer and reporter living in Los Angeles, California.

56

American Federalism

2 Watch the Video at myanthrolab

Study and Review the Pre-Test and Flashcards at myanthrolab

Read the Document at myanthrolab

Read the Document The Title of the Document Goes Here at myanthrolab

View the Image at myanthrolab

Map the Concepts at myanthrolab

Explore the Concept at myanthrolab

Simulate the Experiment at myanthrolab

Listen to the Audio File at myanthrolab

Read and Listen to Chapter 2 at myanthrolab

Read the Document at myanthrolab Sample Document Title Text

Map the Concepts at myanthrolab Sample Concept Title Text

Margin sample

Listen to Chapter 2 on MyPolisciLab

he relationship of the national government to the states has been the subject of intense debate since the founding.1 In 1787, members of what would become the Federalist Party defended the creation of a strong national government. Their rivals, the Anti-Federalists, warned that a strong national government would over- shadow the states. The debate over which level of government best represents

the people continues to this day. State governments often complain that the national government is either taking over respon-

sibilities that belong to them under the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, which reserves to them all powers not given to the national government, or controlling too much of what they do. Yet, in policy areas such as civil rights, educational opportunities for people with disabilities, and hand- gun control, the states have been slow to respond, and the national government has taken steps to deal with these issues.

At the same time, states retain enormous authority under the Constitution to regulate life within their borders. Working with the local governments they create, states police the streets, fight fires, impose their own taxes, create most of the laws that govern their citizens, define the meaning of marriage, set the rules for elections and register voters, run the public schools, and administer most of the programs to help the poor, even when the money for those pro- grams comes from the national government. This broad scope begs the question, where does the national government end and state government begin?

This question involves a host of questions that involve how far states can go in drafting their own laws and how aggressive they should be in enforcing national laws. Under Article I, for example, the Founders gave Congress the power to set the rules regarding naturalization, which is the process by which immigrants are given U.S. citizenship and the rights that go with it.

2.1

Interpret the definitions of federalism, and analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the American sys- tem of federalism, p. 59.

Differentiate the powers the Constitution pro- vides to national and state govern- ments, p. 66.

2.2

Assess the role of the national courts in defining the relationship between the national and state governments, and evaluate the positions of decentralists and centralists, p. 72.

2.3

Evaluate the budget as a tool of federalism, and its impact on state and local govern- ments, p. 76.

2.4

Describe the rela- tionship between the national and state governments and the chal- lenges for federal- ism, p. 81.

2.5

T

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 56 11/19/12 1:44 PM

57 57

Alabama’s tough immigration law requires police, schools, and hospitals to ask citizens for proof of their citizenship, even if the ones provid- ing the proof are in grade school. One of the parents of this Alabama student is a U.S. citizen, while the other is an undocumented immigrant, meaning that one of her parents could soon be deported if the Alabama law remains in force.

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 57 11/19/12 1:44 PM

58

2

So what? If American government was a type of cake, what cake would it be? using marble cake as a metaphor, author Paul C. Light explains the importance of understanding America’s “blended” government so that students can determine which level or branch can best address their concerns.

6

In the Real world Should the federal government be allowed to mandate health care reform or should that power belong to the states? hear supporters and detractors of obamacare explain their opinions, and learn about the recent Supreme Court decision that handed this power to the federal government.

In the Real world health care reform or should that power belong to the states? hear supporters and detractors of obamacare explain their opinions, and learn about the recent Supreme Court decision that handed this power to the federal government.

5

Thinking Like a political Scientist find answers to the most current questions that scholars of federalism are raising in the areas of welfare reform and state rights. barnard College political scientist Scott L. minkoff explores the challenges faced by state-rights advocates once they are elected to Congress.

4

In Context what is the primary mechanism for federalism in the united States? In this video, barnard College political scientist Scott L. minkoff explains how the national government tries to force state governments to adopt its policies and how state governments respond.

In Context In this video, barnard College political scientist Scott L. minkoff explains how the national government tries to force state governments to adopt its policies and how state governments respond.

3

The basics Are you a states-right advocate? This video will help you understand how powers and responsibilities are divided between the national and state governments. You’ll also discover how the powers of the national government have expanded and consider whether this is in the best interests of the people.

The big picture Is the national government the same thing as the federal government? Not quite. Author Paul C. Light explains the difference, as well as the types of government that make up America’s federal system—from national to local and from executive to judicial.

1

MyPoliSciLab Video Series Watch on MyPoliSciLab

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 58 11/19/12 1:44 PM

59

2.4

2.2

2.5

2.3

2.1 In recent years, however, many states have passed laws that challenge the national gov-

ernment’s supremacy in setting rules covering undocumented immigrants who reside in the U.S. illegally. With the nation and most states suffering from high unemployment starting in 2008 and continuing to this day, some states have argued that undocumented immigrants are taking jobs that would go to U.S. citizens. They have passed laws that put tight restrictions on state benefits such as public education and college tuition benefits for the children of illegal immigrants. Although some of these laws have been declared unconstitutional by the national courts, states continue to try new ways of reducing illegal immigration. In 2006, 84 immigra- tion bills were enacted by state legislatures and signed into law; by 2010, the number had climbed to 364, with further increases in 2011.2

In June 2011, for example, Alabama enacted one of the most restrictive immigration laws in the nation. Under the law, illegal immigrants are considered state criminals who are subject to arrest and possible imprisonment. Most significantly, the law requires that public schools must check the immigration status of all their students. Under the provision, school children were required to reveal the immigration status of their parents.

In revealing their own immigration status, students had little choice but to tell school administrators whether their parents were in the United States legally. Although any child born in the United States is automatically deemed a citizen under national law and the Constitution, some Alabama school children were born to illegal immigrants. As a result, many parents kept their children home on October 1 when the law took effect, and some fled the state to avoid the law.3 The same law also contained a provision that required residents of mobile homes to prove their legal status before renewing their annual home registration tags.

Even as the Alabama law was going into effect, an equally tough Arizona law was mov- ing toward the Supreme Court. After hearing arguments in April, a 5 to 3 majority declared that the national government, not the states, had the “broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.” The national laws were supreme to any state laws,rendering most of Arizona’s law unconstitutional. At the same time, the Court did permit Arizona to implement its “show me your papers” provision, which gives police the authority to ask drivers for their citizenship papers when stopped for other reasons. The Court ruled that the provision was a constitutional exercise of state powers. It is still not clear how much of Alabama’s law will survive further tests based on the Court’s decision. For now, Alabama says it is still in force.4

In this chapter, we first define federalism and its advantages and disadvantages. We then look at the constitutional basis for our federal system and how court decisions and political developments have shaped, and continue to shape, federalism in the United States. Throughout, you should think about how you influence the issues you care about, even in your local city council or mayor’s office. The Constitution clearly encourages, and even depends on, you to express your view at all levels of government, which is why action in a single state can start a process that spreads to other states or the national government.

Defining Federalism Interpret the definitions of federalism, and assess the advantages and disadvantages of the American system of federalism.

2.1

ars have been fought over what federalism means in part because the term itself is laden with ideological interpretation.5

Federalism, as we define it in nonpartisan terms, is a form of govern- ment in which a constitution distributes authority and powers between

a central government and smaller regional governments—usually called states or provinces—giving to both the national and the state governments substantial respon- sibilities and powers, including the power to collect taxes and to pass and enforce laws

federalism A constitutional arrangement in which power is distributed between a cen- tral government and states, which are sometimes called provinces in other nations. The national and states exer- cise direct authority over individuals.

W

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 59 11/19/12 1:44 PM

60

2.4

2.2

2.5

2.3

2 .1 regulating the conduct of individuals. When we use the term “federalism” or “federal system,” we are referring to this system of national and state governments; when we use the term “federal government” in all other chapters of this book, we are referring to the Congress, presidency, and judiciary created under the U.S. Constitution.

The mere existence of both national and state governments does not make a system federal. What is important is that a constitution divides governmental powers between the national government and state governments, giving clearly defined functions to each. Neither the central nor the regional government receives its powers from the other; both derive them from a common source—the Constitution. No ordinary act of legis- lation at either the national or the state level can change this constitutional distribution of powers. Both levels of government operate through their own agents and exercise power directly over individuals.

Constitutionally, the federal system of the United States consists of only the national government and the 50 states. “Cities are not,” the Supreme Court reminded us, “sovereign entities.”6 This does not make for a tidy, efficient, easy-to-understand system; yet, as we shall see, it has its virtues.

There are several different ways that power can be shared in a federal system, and political scientists have devised terms to explain these various, sometimes overlapping, kinds of federalism. At different times in the United States’ history, our system of federalism has shared power based on each of these interpretations:

• Dual or “layer-cake” federalism is defined as a strict separation of powers between the national and state governments in which each layer of has its own responsi- bilities, and reigns supreme within its constitutional realm. Dual federalism was dominant from the 1790s until the 1930s.

• Cooperative or “marble-cake” federalism is defined as a flexible relationship between the national and state government in which both work together on a variety of issues and programs.7 Cooperative federalism was dominant from the 1930s through the 1970s.

• Competitive federalism is defined as a way to improve government performance by encouraging state and local governments to compete against each other for resi- dents, businesses, investment, and national funding.8 Competitive federalism has coexisted with other definitions of federalism since the 1980s.

State and local governments are responsible for policing the streets but not for enforcing federal laws. Still, they often work with national agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration. This kind of joint action is an example of cooperative federalism.

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 60 11/19/12 1:44 PM

61

2.4

2.2

2.5

2.3

2.1 • Permissive federalism is defined as a strong national government that only allows,

or permits the states to act when it decides to do so. Although federalism gener- ally assumes that the national and state governments will share power, permissive federalism argues that the power to share belongs to the national government, and national government alone.9 Permissive federalism has been dominant on specific issues such as civil rights since the 1960s.

• Coercive federalism is also defined as a strong national government that exerts tight control of the states through orders or mandates—typically without accompanying financial resources. If states want federal grants, they must follow the mandates. Coercive federalism is sometimes called centralized federalism, which focuses on the national government’s strong voice in shaping what states do. Coercive feder- alism has also been dominant on specific issues such as public education and the environment since the 1960s.

• New federalism is defined as a recent effort to reduce the national government’s power by returning, or devolving responsibilities to the states. It is sometimes characterized as part of the devolution revolution discussed later in this chapter. The new federalism has been seen as a modern form of dual federalism based on the Tenth Amendment, and was first introduced by President Richard Nixon in 1969.

Alternatives to Federalism Among the alternatives to federalism are unitary systems of government, in which a constitution vests all governmental power in the central government. The central government, if it so chooses, may delegate authority to constituent units, but what it delegates, it may take away. China, France, the Scandinavian countries, and Israel have unitary governments. In the United States, state constitutions usually create this kind of relationship between the state and its local governments.

At the other extreme from unitary governments are confederations, in which sovereign nations, through a constitutional compact, create a central government but carefully limit its authority and do not give it the power to regulate the conduct of individuals directly. The central government makes regulations for the constitu- ent governments, but it exists and operates only at their direction. The 13 states under the Articles of Confederation operated in this manner, as did the southern Confederacy during the Civil War. The closest current example of an operating confederacy in the world is the European Union (EU), which is composed of 27 nations. Although the EU does bind its members to a common currency called the Euro, and does have a European Parliament and European Court of Justice and European Commission, members such as France, Germany, Italy, and Spain retain their own laws and authority. The EU may look like a confederation, but it acts more like a traditional alliance such as the United Nations, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.10

Even among all the nations that call themselves federations, there is no single model for dividing authority between the national and state governments. Some coun- tries have no federal system at all, whereas others have different variations of power sharing between the national and state governments. Indeed, even the United States has varied greatly over time in its balance of national–state power.

Britain’s government, for example, is divided into three tiers: national, county, and district governments. County and district governments deliver roughly one-fifth of all government services, including education, housing, and police and fire protection. As a rule, most power is reserved for the central government on the theory that there should be “territorial justice,” which means that all citizens should be governed by the same laws and standards. In recent years, however, Great Britain has devolved substantial authority to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

unitary system A constitutional arrangement that c on c e n t r a t e s p owe r i n a c e n t r a l government.

confederation A constitutional arrangement in which sovereign nations or states, by compact, create a central government but care- fully limit its power and do not give it direct authority over individuals.

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 61 11/19/12 1:44 PM

62

2.4

2.2

2.5

2.3

2.1 The Global Community Global Opinion on the Role of Government

State and local governments are on the front lines of most programs for helping the needy. They provide much of the money and/or administration for unemploy- ment insurance for the jobless, health care clinics and hospitals for the poor, school lunch programs for hun- gry children, and homeless shelters. Although many U.S. citizens see poverty firsthand as volunteers for local charities such as food pantries, some have doubts about how much government should do to help poor people who cannot take care of themselves. According to the Pew Research Center’s Spring 2007 Global Attitudes Survey, citizens of other nations vary greatly on the question of whether “It is the responsibility of the (state or government) to take care of very poor peo- ple who can’t take care of themselves.”

These opinions reflect very different social and eco- nomic conditions in each country. Japan has a culture of self-reliance that puts the burden on individuals to help themselves, while Nigeria continues to suffer from some of the highest poverty rates in the world. In this regard, U.S. citizens tend to mirror the Japanese—they want government to help the less fortunate but also want the less fortunate to help themselves. As a gen- eral conclusion, citizens of wealthier nations think poor people should take advantage of the opportunities that already exist in their economies, whereas citizens of poor nations believe that government should be more aggressive in providing support.

This does not mean wealthier nations are uncaring toward citizens in need, but it does suggest that they sometimes view poverty as the fault of the poor. In the United States, these opinions reflect the importance of equality of opportunity as a basic social value, mean- ing that all individuals regardless of race, gender, or circumstance have the same opportunity to participate in politics, self-government, and the economy. Most Americans want to help the less fortunate, but only when they are truly needy, not when they fail because they will not help themselves.

CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS 1. What are the advantages and disadvantages

of having the government provide services for the poor?

2. Why might more wealthy nations be more likely to believe that individuals ought to take care of themselves and not rely on the state?

3. Which level of government might be most effective in providing services to the poor?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

B ri

ta in

C h

in a

P e rc

e n

t

In d

ia

J a p

a n

M e x ic

o

N ig

e ri

a

U n

it e d

S ta

te s

Completely Agree Mostly Agree

It is the responsibility of the government to take care of the poor.

Advantages of Federalism In 1787, federalism was a compromise between centrists, who supported a strong national government, and those who favored decentralization. Confederation had proved unsuccessful. A unitary system was out of the question because most people were too deeply attached to their state governments to permit subordination to central rule. Many scholars think that federalism is ideally suited to the needs of a diverse peo- ple spread throughout a large continent, suspicious of concentrated power, and desiring unity but not uniformity. Yet, even though federalism offers a number of advantages over other forms of government, no system is perfect. Federalism offered, and still offers, both advantages and disadvantages.

FEdERALISm CHECKS THE GROwTH OF TyRANNy Federalism has not always prevented tyranny, even in the United States, when Southern states seceded from

SOURCE: Pew Research Center, Global Views on Life Satisfaction, National Conditions, and the Global Economy: Highlights from the 2007 Pew Global Attitudes 47-Nation Survey (Pew Research Center, 2007).

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 62 11/19/12 1:44 PM

63

2.4

2.2

2.5

2.3

2.1 the Union rather than end slavery. Today, however, U.S. citizens tend to associate federalism with freedom.11 When one political party loses control of the national government, it is still likely to hold office in a number of states and can continue to challenge the party in power at the national level. To the Framers, who feared that a single interest group might capture the national government and suppress the interests of others, this diffusion of power was an advantage. There are now nearly 90,000 governments in the United States, including one national government, 50 state governments, and thousands of county, city, and town governments, as well as school boards and special districts that provide specific functions from managing hospitals or parks to mosquito control.12 (See Figure 2.1 for the number of govern- ments in the United States.)

FEdERALISm ALLOwS UNITy wITHOUT UNIFORmITy National politicians and parties do not have to iron out every difference on every issue that divides us, whether the issue is abortion, same-sex marriage, gun control, capital punishment, welfare financing, or assisted suicide. Instead, these issues are debated in state leg- islatures, county courthouses, and city halls. Information about state action spreads quickly from government to government, especially during periods when the national government is relatively slow to respond to pressing issues.

FEdERALISm ENCOURAGES ExpERImENTATION As Justice Louis Brandeis once argued, states can be laboratories of democracy. 13 If they adopt pro- grams that fail, the negative effects are limited; if programs succeed, they can be adopted by other states and by the national government. Georgia, for example, was the first state to permit 18-year-olds to vote; Wisconsin was a leader in requir- ing welfare recipients to work; California moved early on global warming; and Massachusetts created one of the first state programs to provide health insurance to all its citizens.

FEdERALISm pROvIdES TRAINING ANd CREATES OppORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE NATIONAL LEAdERS Federalism provides a training ground for state

Special districts

School districts

Townships or towns

Municipalities

Counties

States

National

13,506

16,504

3,034

50

1

35,052

19,429

F I G U R E 2 . 1 NumbEr of SEPArATE GovErNmENTS IN ThE fEDErAL SYSTEm

◼ How do the levels and numbers of governments in the United States help to prevent tyranny?

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Statistical Abstract of the United States, www.census.gov/prod/2012/tables/12s428.pdf.

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 63 11/19/12 1:44 PM

64

2.4

2.2

2.5

2.3

2.1 and local politicians to gain experience before moving to the national stage. Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush pre- viously served as governor of the respective states of Georgia, California, Arkansas, and Texas. All totaled, 20 of the nation’s 44 presidents served as governor at some points before winning the presidency. In addition, three former governors ( Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, and Mitt Romney) ran for the Republican Party nomina- tion for president in 2012, and several were heavily recruited for the campaign but declined.

FEdERALISm KEEpS GOvERNmENT CLOSER TO THE pEOpLE By providing numerous arenas for decision making, federalism provides many opportunities for Americans to participate in the process of government and helps keep government closer to the people. Every day, thousands of U.S. adults serve on city councils, school boards, neighborhood associations, and planning commissions. Federalism also builds on the public’s greater trust in government at the state and local levels. The closer the specific level of government is to the people, the more citizens trust the government.

disadvantages of Federalism

dIvIdING pOwER mAKES IT mUCH mORE dIFFICULT FOR GOvERNmENT TO RESpONd QUICKLy TO NATIONAL pRObLEmS There was a great demand for stronger and more effective homeland security after the September 11, 2001, ter- rorist attacks, and the national government created a new Department of Homeland Security in response. However, the department quickly discovered that there would be great difficulty coordinating its efforts with 50 state governments and thousands of local governments already providing fire, police, transportation, immigration, and other governmental services.

THE dIvISION OF pOwER mAKES IT dIFFICULT FOR vOTERS TO HOLd ELECTEd OFFICIALS ACCOUNTAbLE When something goes well, who should voters re- ward? When something goes wrong, who should they punish? When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and the surrounding areas in late August 2005 (and Rita less than a month later near Houston), many thousands of people lost their homes and billions of dollars in damage was done. Who was responsible? Did the national government and agencies like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) drop the ball on relief efforts, or was it the state or local govern- ment ’s responsibility? Did the mayor and/or governor fail to plan adequately for such a crisis, or should the national government have had more supplies on hand in advance?

THE LACK OF UNIFORmITy CAN LEAd TO CONFLICT States often disagree on issues such as health care, school reform, and crime control. In January 2008, for example, California joined 15 other states in suing the national government over a ruling issued by the national Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For decades, the EPA had allowed California to enact tougher air quality restrictions through higher mileage standards than required by the national Clean Air Act (first enacted in 1970). The Bush administration rejected a similar request for permission to raise mileage standards in 2008, only to be reversed by the Obama administra- tion in 2009.

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 64 11/19/12 1:44 PM

65

OF the People Diversity in America

The United States is a nation of immigrants who have arrived from many parts of the world. Throughout the decades, the portrait of immigrants has been changing from mostly white to mostly minority. In 2009, for example, 38.5 million Americans, or 12.5 per- cent, were foreign born, consisting of 16.8 million natu- ralized citizens, 10 million long-term visitors, and less than 11 million undocumented immigrants. The number of unauthorized, or illegal, immigrants has fallen some- what in recent years due to the economic recession, which has depressed employment opportunities.

Many foreign-born residents live in the nation’s larg- est cities. The New York City-area population includes more than 3 million foreign-born residents, while Los Angeles includes another 1.5 million; Miami, slightly more than 2 million; Chicago, just under 600,000, and San Francisco, 275,000. Although inner cities host a majority of foreign-born residents, there has been recent movement of immigrants to the suburbs and some movement toward certain areas of the country such as the southwest.

The changing face of America brings great diver- sity in all aspects of life, from schools to farm fields and small businesses. It also enriches the quality of life through the mix of old and new cultures, and can often be a source of innovation in how the economy operates.

However, this diversity also provokes complaints about undocumented immigrants. Some groups com- plain that undocumented immigrants take jobs that should go to U.S. citizens, whereas others worry about the costs associated with high poverty rates.

Governments at all levels must reconcile these pros and cons with our history of welcoming immi- grants from all around the world.

QUESTIONS 1. How are foreign-born citizens from different

regions of the world different from each other?

2. Why do you think foreign-born citizens tend to live in our nation’s largest cities?

3. How do foreign-born citizens contribute to the nation’s quality of life?

Where Americans Come From and Where They Live

The Statue of Liberty symbolizes America’s long tradition of welcoming immigrants to its shores.

vARIATION IN pOLICIES CREATES REdUNdANCIES, INEFFICIENCIES, ANd INEQUALITIES Labor laws, teacher certification rules, gun ownership laws, and even the licensing requirements for optometrists vary throughout the 50 states, and this is on top of many national regulations. Companies seeking to do business across state lines must learn and abide by many different sets of laws, while individuals in licensed professions must consider whether they face recertification if they choose to relocate to another state. Where national laws do not exist, it is tempting for each state to try to undercut others’ regulations to get a competitive advantage in such areas as attracting new industry, regulating environmental concerns, or setting basic eligibility standards for welfare or health benefits.

2.4

2.5

2.3

2.1

2.2

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 65 11/19/12 1:44 PM

66

2.1

2.4

2.5

2.3

2.2

The Constitutional Structure of American Federalism

Differentiate the powers the Constitution provides to national and state governments.2.2

delegated (express) powers Po w e r s g i v e n e x p l i c i t l y t o t h e national government and listed in the Constitution.

implied powers Powers inferred from the express powers that allow Congress to carry out its functions.

necessary and proper clause T h e c l a u s e i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) setting forth the implied powers of Congress. It states that Congress, in addition to its express powers, has the right to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out all powers the Constitution vests in the national government.

inherent powers The powers of the national gov- ernment in foreign affairs that the Supreme Court has declared do not depend on constitutional grants but rather grow out of the national gov- ernment ’s obligation to protect the nation from domestic and foreign threats.

he division of powers and responsibilities between the national and state governments has resulted in thousands of court decisions, as well as hun- dreds of books and endless speeches to explain them—and even then the division lacks precise definition. Nonetheless, it is helpful to have a basic

understanding of how the Constitution divides these powers and responsibilities and what obligations it imposes on each level of government.

The constitutional framework of our federal system is relatively simple:

1. The national government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution (with the important exception of the inherent power over foreign affairs).

2. Within the scope of its operations, the national government is supreme. 3. The state governments have all of the powers not delegated to the central

government except those denied to them by the Constitution and their state constitutions.

4. Some powers are specifically denied to both the national and state governments; others are specifically denied only to the states or to the national government.

powers of the National Government The Constitution explicitly gives legislative, executive, and judicial powers to the national government. In addition to these delegated or expressed powers, such as the power to regulate interstate commerce and to appropriate funds, the national govern- ment has assumed constitutionally implied powers, such as the power to create banks, which are inferred from delegated powers. The constitutional basis for the implied pow- ers of Congress is the necessary and proper clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). This clause gives Congress the right “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested … in the Government of the United States.” (Powers specifically listed in the Constitution are also called express powers because they are listed expressly.)

In foreign affairs, the national government has inherent powers. The national government has the same authority to deal with other nations as if it were the central government in a unitary system. Such inherent powers do not depend on specific con- stitutional provisions but exist because of the creation of the national government itself. For example, the government of the United States may acquire territory by purchase or by discovery and occupation, even though no specific clause in the Constitution allows such acquisition.

The national and state governments may have their own lists of powers, but the national government relies on four constitutional pillars for its ultimate authority over the states: (1) the supremacy clause, (2) the war power, (3) the commerce clause, and espe- cially (4) the power to tax and spend for the general welfare. All four of these pillars are discussed individually below.

Together, however, they have permitted a steady expansion of the national govern- ment’s functions to the point where some states complain they have lost the power to regulate their own actions. Despite the Supreme Court’s recent declaration that some national laws exceed Congress’s constitutional powers, the national government has, in effect, almost full power to enact any legislation that Congress deems necessary, so long as it does not conflict with provisions of the Constitution designed to protect

T

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 66 11/19/12 1:44 PM

67

2.1

2.4

2.5

2.3

2.2

individual rights and the powers of the states. In addition, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, gives Congress the power to enact legislation to remedy constitutional violations and the denial of due process or equal protection of the laws.

THE SUpREmACy CLAUSE The supremacy clause may be the most important pillar of U.S. federalism. Found in Article VI of the Constitution, the clause is simple and direct: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made…under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not- withstanding.” Under the clause, state and local governments may not ignore or cre- ate their own substitutes for national laws and regulations. Because national laws and regulations of national agencies are supreme, conflicting state and local regulations are unenforceable. States must abide by the national government’s minimum wage laws, for example, but are allowed to set the minimum wage higher if they wish.

THE wAR pOwER The national government is responsible for protecting the nation from external aggression, whether from other nations or from international terrorism. The government’s power to maintain national security includes the power to wage war. In today’s world, military strength depends not only on the presence of troops in the field, but also on the ability to mobilize the nation’s industrial might and apply scien- tific and technological knowledge to the tasks of defense. As Charles Evans Hughes, who became chief justice in 1930, observed: “The power to wage war is the power to wage war successfully.”14 The national government is free to create “no-fly” zones only for its military aircraft both within and across state borders, for example, and may use any airports it needs during times of war or peace.

T H E p O w E R T O R E G U L A T E I N T E R S T A T E A N d F O R E I G N C O m m E R C E Congressional authority extends to all commerce that affects more than one state. Commerce includes the production, buying, selling, renting, and transporting of goods, services, and properties. The commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) packs a tremendous constitutional punch; it gives Congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” In these few words, the national government has found constitutional justification for regulating a wide range of human activity because few aspects of our economy today affect commerce in only one state, the requirement that would render the activity out- side the scope of the national government’s constitutional authority.

The landmark ruling of Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824, affirmed the broad authority of Congress over interstate commerce.15 The case involved a New York state license that gave Aaron Ogden the exclusive right to operate steamboats between New York and New Jersey. Using the license, Ogden asked the New York state courts to stop Thomas Gibbons from running a competing ferry. Although Gibbons countered that his boats were licensed under a 1793 act of Congress governing vessels “in the coasting trade and fisheries,” the New York courts sided with Ogden. Just as the national government and states both have the power to tax, the New York courts said they both had the power to regulate commerce.

Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court and asked a simple question: Which government had the ultimate power to regulate interstate commerce? The Supreme Court gave an equally simple answer: The national government’s laws were supreme.

Gibbons v. Ogden was immediately heralded for promoting a national economic common market, in holding that states may not discriminate against interstate trans- portation and out-of-state commerce. The Supreme Court’s brilliant definition of “commerce” as intercourse among the states provided the basis for national regulation of “things in commerce”16 and an expanding range of economic activities, including the sale of lottery tickets,17 prostitution,18 radio and television broadcasts,19 and telecom- munications and the Internet.

supremacy clause C o n t a i n e d i n A r t i c l e I V o f t h e Constitution, the clause gives national laws the absolute power even when states have enacted a competing law.

commerce clause T h e c l a u s e i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) that gives Congress the power to regulate all business activities that cross state lines or affect more than one state or other nations.

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 67 11/19/12 1:44 PM

68

2.1

2.4

2.5

2.3

2.2

THE pOwER TO TAx ANd SpENd Congress lacks constitutional authority to pass laws solely on the grounds that they will promote the general welfare, but it may raise taxes and spend money for this purpose. For example, even when the national govern- ment lacks the power to regulate education or agriculture directly, it still has the power to appropriate money to support education or to pay farm subsidies. By attaching con- ditions to its grants of money, the national government creates incentives that affect state action. If states want the money, they must accept the conditions.

When the national government provides the money, it can determine how the money will be spent. By withholding or threatening to withhold funds, the national government can influence or control state operations and regulate individual conduct. For example, the national government has stipulated that national funds should be withdrawn from any program in which any person is denied benefits because of race, color, national origin, sex, or physical handicap. The national government also used its “power of the purse” to force states to raise the drinking age to 21 by tying such a con- dition to national dollars for building and maintaining highways.

Congress frequently requires states to provide specific programs—for example, ser- vices to indigent mothers, and clean air and water. These requirements are called federal mandates. Often the national government does not supply the funds required to carry out “unfunded mandates” (discussed later in the chapter). Its failure to do so has become an important issue as states face growing expenditures with limited resources.

powers of the States The Constitution reserves for the states all powers not granted to the national government, subject only to the limitations of the Constitution. Only the states have the reserve powers to create schools and local governments, for example. Both are powers not given exclusively to the national government by the Constitution or judicial interpretation, so that states can exercise these powers as long as they do not conflict with national law.

The national and state governments also share powers. These concurrent powers with the national government include the power to levy taxes and regulate commerce internal to each state.

In general, states may levy taxes on the same items the national government taxes, such as incomes, alcohol, and gasoline, but a state cannot, by a tax, “unduly burden” commerce among the states, interfere with a function of the national government, complicate the operation of a national law, or abridge the terms of a treaty of the United States. However, where the national government has not asserted its supremacy, states may regulate interstate businesses, provided these regulations do not cover mat- ters requiring uniform national treatment or unduly burden interstate commerce.

(See Table 2.1 for the constitutional division of powers.) Who decides which matters require “uniform national treatment” or what actions

might place an “undue burden” on interstate commerce? Congress does, subject to the president’s signature and final review by the Supreme Court. When Congress is silent or does not clearly state its intent, the courts—ultimately, the Supreme Court—decide whether there is a conflict with the national Constitution or whether a state law or regulation has preempted the national government’s authority.

Constitutional Limits and Obligations To ensure that federalism works, the Constitution imposes restraints on both the national and the state governments. States are prohibited from doing the following:

1. Making treaties with foreign governments 2. Authorizing private citizens or organizations to interfere with the shipping and

commerce of other nations 3. Coining money, issuing bills of credit, or making anything but gold and silver

coins legal tender in payment of debts

Though many states allow the use of medicinal marijuana, the Supreme Court decided that the national government could regulate its use in the states as a form of interstate commerce.

federal mandate A requirement the national govern- ment imposes as a condition for receiving federal funds.

reserve powers All powers not specifically delegated to the national government by the Constitution. The reserve power can be found in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

concurrent powers Powers that the Constitution gives to both the national and state govern- ments, such as the power to levy taxes.

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 68 11/19/12 1:44 PM

69

2.1

2.4

2.5

2.3

2.2

4. Taxing imports or exports 5. Taxing foreign ships 6. Keeping troops or ships of war in time of peace (except for the state militia, now

called the National Guard) 7. Engaging in war

In turn, the Constitution requires the national government to refrain from exer- cising its powers, especially its powers to tax and to regulate interstate commerce, in such a way as to interfere substantially with the states’ abilities to perform their responsibilities. But politicians, judges, and scholars disagree about whether the national political process—specifically the executive and the legislature—or the courts should ultimately define the boundaries between the powers of the national government and the states. Some argue that the states’ protection from intrusions by the national government comes primarily from the political process because senators

TAbLE 2.1 ThE CoNSTITuTIoNAL DIvISIoN of NATIoNAL AND STATE PowErS

Examples of Powers Delegated to the National Government

Regulate trade and interstate commerce Declare war Create post offices Coin money

Examples of Powers Reserved for State Governments

Create local governments Police citizens Oversee primary and elementary education

Examples of Concurrent Powers Shared by the National and State Governments

Impose and collect taxes and fees Borrow and spend money Establish courts at their level of government Enact and enforce laws Protect civil rights Conduct elections Protect health and welfare

Under national pressure and the threat that they will lose national funding if they do not act, states have raised the drinking age to 21. States are also under pressure to monitor drunk driving more aggressively. When states operate these checkpoints because they will lose national funding, the action reflects coercive federalism.

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 69 11/19/12 1:44 PM

70

2.1

2.4

2.5

2.3

2.2

You Will Decide Should Citizens Have the Right to Choose Their Time to Die?

Many Americans suffer great pain as they strug-gle with cancer and other diseases in the last few months of life. Although modern medicine offers a number of options for easing the pain through hos- pice and drug therapies, some citizens would prefer to end their lives on their own schedule through what was once mislabeled as “assisted suicide.”

This term often creates images of euthanasia by raising the specter of doctors and government making the decision about when a terminally ill patient should be given the drugs to die. In recent years, however, the term has been replaced by the concept of “end-of-life-choice.” Driven by the “death with dignity” movement, which is led by a public interest group called “Compassion and Choice” (www. compassionandchoice.org), the campaign has won voter approval in Oregon, Washington, Montana,

and Hawaii. Under current law in these states, patients, not doctors, are given the option of ending their own lives through drugs that ease them into a life-ending coma, or deep sleep, leading to death within minutes.

These states require at least two doctors to certify that a patient has only six months or less to live. With this certification in hand, the doctors are allowed to give the patient a prescription for the life-ending drugs. Having decided to end his or her life, the patient is asked two questions before taking the drugs: (1) Do you wish to end your life, and (2) Are you able to administer the drugs by your own hand? If the patient answers yes to both ques- tions, he or she is given the drugs to act. Some patients decide to take the drugs, while others do not.

What do you think? Should all states give their citizens the right to end their own lives?

*Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990). **Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997). ***Baxter v. Montana, — P.3d —-, 2009 WL 5155363 (Mont. 2009).

Thinking It Through

These citizen-approved laws have been tested in the national courts to see whether states have the right to allow their citizens to choose their own time of death.

In a landmark 1990 decision, the Supreme Court decided that states could allow their citizens to express their desire to refuse unwanted medical treatment such as food and water at the end of their lives and to appoint someone to speak for them when they could not.* In 1997, however, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not guarantee a right to die.**

According to these rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged a citizen’s right to take control of certain aspects of their death, but also affirmed a state legis- lature’s right to prohibit anyone from providing help in dying. Also under the rulings, states, not the national government, had the responsibility to pass laws either allowing or prohibiting doctor aid in ending life. Since there is no right to die in the U.S. Constitution, it is also up to state courts to uphold or reject end of life laws under their own constitutions.

The Montana Supreme Court did so on December 31, 2009, when it decided that doctors could provide end of life drugs, provided that the patient was mentally competent and clearly aware of the consequences of his or her action and was able to take the drugs without

assistance.*** On January 1, 2010, the Montana “Death with Dignity Act” went into effect.

It is not clear whether the movement toward “death with dignity” will spread to other states. Although advo- cates believe they have a chance in other western states where voters have the right to pass legislation under the initiative power, state legislatures in other states have been reluctant to raise the issue because it is so contro- versial. Some citizens define the choice as a form of sui- cide, and in direct violation of their religious beliefs. Other opponents argue that no one can be sure when they will die even when they have a terminal disease. The right to choose one’s time of death may be permitted under state and national constitutions, but is still a choice that citizens and their legislators must allow.

CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS 1. Why did the U.S. Supreme Court decide not to

reverse state laws regulating the end of life?

2. Why would a state legislature be reluctant to pass end-of-life legislation? Which groups favor such laws and which do not?

3. Is a law needed at all on the end of life issue? Should either the national or state govern- ments get involved in this issue?

and representatives elected from the states participate in congressional decisions.20 Others maintain that the Supreme Court should limit the national government’s power and defend the states.21

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 70 11/19/12 1:44 PM

71

On a case-by-case basis, the Court has held that the national government may not command states to enact laws to comply with or order state employees to enforce national laws. In Printz v. United States, the Court held that states were not required to conduct instant national background checks prior to selling a handgun.22 Referring broadly to the concept of dual federalism discussed earlier in this chapter, the Supreme Court said that the national government could not “draft” local police to do its bidding. But as previously discussed, even if the national government cannot force states to enforce certain national laws, it can threaten to withhold its funding if states do not comply with national policies, such as lowering the minimum drinking age or speed limit.

The Constitution also obliges the national government to protect states against domestic insurrection. Congress has delegated to the president the authority to dis- patch troops to put down such insurrections when the proper state authorities request them.

Interstate Relationships Three clauses in the Constitution, taken from the Articles of Confederation, require states to give full faith and credit to each other’s public acts, records, and judicial proceedings; to extend to each other’s citizens the privileges and immunities of their own citizens; and to return persons who are fleeing from justice.

FULL FAITH ANd CREdIT The full faith and credit clause (Article IV, Section 1), one of the more technical provisions of the Constitution, requires state courts to enforce the civil judgments of the courts of other states and accept their public records and acts as valid.23 It does not require states to enforce the criminal laws or legisla- tion and administrative acts of other states; in most cases, for one state to enforce the criminal laws of another would raise constitutional issues. The clause applies primarily to enforcing judicial settlements and court awards.

INTERSTATE pRIvILEGES ANd ImmUNITIES Under Article IV, Section 2, indi- vidual states must give citizens of all other states the privileges and immunities they grant to their own citizens, including the protection of the laws, the right to engage in peaceful occupations, access to the courts, and freedom from discriminatory taxes. Because of this clause, states may not impose unreasonable residency requirements, that is, withhold rights to American citizens who have recently moved to the state and thereby have become citizens of that state.

ExTRAdITION In Article IV, Section 2, the Constitution asserts that, when individuals charged with crimes have fled from one state to another, the state to which they have fled is to deliver them to the proper officials on demand of the executive authority of the state from which they fled. This process is called extradition. “The obvious objective of the Extradition Clause,” the courts have claimed, “is that no State should become a safe haven for the fugitives from a sister State’s criminal justice system.”24 Congress has supplemented this constitutional provision by making the governor of the state to which fugitives have fled respon- sible for returning them.

INTERSTATE COmpACTS The Constitution also requires states to settle disputes with one another without the use of force. States may carry their legal disputes to the Supreme Court, or they may negotiate interstate compacts. Interstate compacts often establish interstate agencies to handle problems affecting an entire region. Before most interstate compacts become effective, Congress has to approve them. Then the com- pact becomes binding on all states that sign it, and the national judiciary can enforce its terms. A typical state may belong to 20 compacts dealing with such subjects as en- vironmental protection, crime control, water rights, and higher education exchanges.25

full faith and credit clause T h e c l a u s e i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n (Article IV, Section 1) requiring each state to recognize the civil judg- ments rendered by the courts of the other states and to accept their public records and acts as valid.

extradition The legal process whereby an alleged criminal offender is surrendered by the officials of one state to officials of the state in which the crime is alleged to have been committed.

interstate compact An agreement among two or more states. Congress must approve most such agreements.

2.1

2.4

2.5

2.2

2.3

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 71 11/19/12 1:44 PM

72

2.1

2.4

2.2

2.5

2.3

national supremacy A constitutional doctrine that when- ever conflict occurs between the con- stitutionally authorized actions of the national government and those of a state or local government, the actions of the national government prevail.

Assess the role of the national courts in defining the relationship between the national and state governments, and evaluate the positions of decentralists and centralists.

2.3

lthough the political process ultimately decides how power will be divided between the national and the state governments, the national court sys- tem is often called on to umpire the ongoing debate about which level of government should do what, for whom, and to whom. The nation’s highest

court claimed this role in the celebrated case of McCulloch v. Maryland.

McCulloch v. Maryland In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court had the first of many chances to define the division of power between the national and state governments.26 Congress had established the Bank of the United States, but Maryland opposed any national bank and levied a $10,000 tax on any bank not incorporated in the state. James William McCulloch, the cashier of the bank, refused to pay on the grounds that a state could not tax an instrument of the national government.

Maryland was represented before the Court by some of the country’s most distinguished lawyers, including Luther Martin, who had been a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. Martin said the Constitution did not expressly delegate to the national government the power to create a bank. Martin maintained that the necessary and proper clause gives Congress only the power to choose those means and to pass those laws absolutely essential to the execution of its expressly granted pow- ers. Because a bank is not absolutely necessary to the exercise of its delegated powers, Martin argued, Congress had no authority to establish it.

The national government was represented by equally distinguished lawyers, most notably, Daniel Webster. Webster conceded that the power to create a bank was not one of the express powers of the national government. However, the power to pass laws necessary and proper to carry out Congress’s express powers is specifically delegated to Congress. Webster argued that the Constitution leaves no room for doubt which level of government has the final authority. When national and state laws conflict, Webster argued, the national law must be obeyed.

Speaking for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice John Marshall rejected every one of Maryland’s contentions. He summarized his views on the powers of the national government in these now-famous words: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”

Having established the presence of implied national powers, Marshall then outlined the concept of national supremacy. No state, he said, can use its taxing powers to tax a national instrument. “The power to tax involves the power to destroy…. If the right of the States to tax the means employed by the general government be conceded, the declaration that the Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, is empty and unmeaning declamation.” Marshall’s ruling was based on the Constitution’s supremacy clause.

It is difficult to overstate the long-range significance of McCulloch v. Maryland in providing support for the developing forces of nationalism and a unified economy. If the contrary arguments in favor of the states had been accepted, they would have strapped the national government in a constitutional straitjacket and denied it powers needed to deal with the problems of an expanding nation.

A

The National Courts and Federalism

Explore on MyPoliSciLab Simulation: You Are a Federal Judge

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 72 11/19/12 1:44 PM

73

2.1

2.4

2.2

2.5

2.3

National Courts and the Relationship with the States The authority of national judges to review the activities of state and local governments has expanded dramatically in recent decades because of modern judicial interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids states to deprive any person of life, lib- erty, or property without due process of the law. States may not deny any person the equal protection of the laws, including congressional legislation enacted to implement the Fourteenth Amendment. Almost every action by state and local officials is now subject to challenge before a national judge as a violation of the Constitution or of national law.

Preemption occurs when a national law or regulation takes precedence over a state or local law or regulation. State and local laws are preempted not only when they conflict directly with national laws and regulations, but also when they touch on a field in which the “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.”27 Examples of national preemption include laws regulating hazardous substances, water quality, clean air stan- dards, and many civil rights acts, especially the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Throughout the years, national judges, under the leadership of the Supreme Court, have generally favored the powers of the national government over those of the states. Despite the Supreme Court’s recent bias in favor of state over national authority, few would deny the Supreme Court the power to review and set aside state actions. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court once remarked, “I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.”28

The Supreme Court and the Role of Congress From 1937 until the 1990s, the Supreme Court essentially removed national courts from what had been their role of protecting states from acts of Congress. The Supreme Court broadly interpreted the commerce clause to allow Congress to do

States are responsible for registering voters, but the national government is responsible for assuring that state registration rules are constitutional.

preemption The right of a national law or regula- tion to preclude enforcement of a state or local law or regulation.

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 73 11/19/12 1:44 PM

74

2.1

2.4

2.2

2.5

2.3

whatever Congress thought necessary and proper to promote the common good, even if national laws and regulations infringed on the activities of state and local governments.

In the past 15 years, however, the Supreme Court has signaled that national courts should be more active in resolving federalism issues.29 The Court declared that a state could not impose term limits on its members of Congress, but it did so by only a 5-to-4 vote. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, built his argument on the concept of the federal union as espoused by the great Chief Justice John Marshall, as a compact among the people, with the national government serving as the people’s agent.

The Supreme Court also declared that Congress had the power to regulate com- merce between states and Native Indian tribes, but not the power to allow national courts to resolve conflicts between the two.30 Unless states consent to such suits, they enjoy “sovereign immunity” under the Eleventh Amendment. The effect of this deci- sion goes beyond Indian tribes. As a result—except to enforce rights stemming from the Fourteenth Amendment, which the Court explicitly acknowledged to be within Congress’s power—Congress may no longer authorize individuals to bring legal actions against states to force their compliance with national law in either national or state courts.31

Building on those rulings, the Court continues to press ahead with its “constitu- tional counterrevolution”32 and return to an older vision of federalism from the 1930s. Among other recent rulings, in United States v. Morrison, the Court struck down por- tions of the Violence Against Women Act, which had given women who are victims of violence the right to sue their attackers for damages.33 Congress had found that vio- lence against women annually costs the national economy $3 billion, but a bare major- ity of the Court held that gender-motivated crimes did not have a substantial impact on interstate commerce and that Congress had thus exceeded its powers in enacting the law and intruded on the powers of the states.

These Supreme Court decisions—most of which split the Court 5 to 4 along ideo- logical lines, with the conservative justices favoring states’ rights—have signaled a shift in the Court’s interpretation of the constitutional nature of our federal system. It is a shift that has been reinforced with the most recent Supreme Court appointments made by Presidents Bush and Obama. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, each appointed by President George W. Bush, tend to favor the states, while justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Obama appointees, tend to side with the national government.

The Continuing debate between Centralists and decentralists From the beginning of the Republic, there has been an ongoing debate about the “proper” distribution of powers, functions, and responsibilities between the national government and the states. Did the national government have the authority to outlaw slavery in the territories? Did the states have the authority to operate racially seg- regated schools? Could Congress regulate labor relations? Does Congress have the power to regulate the sale and use of firearms? Does Congress have the right to tell states how to clean up air and water pollution?

Today, the debate continues between centralists, who favor national action on issues such as environmental protection and gun control, and decentralists, who defend the powers of the states and favor action at the state and local levels on these issues.

THE CENTRALIST pOSITION The centralist position has been supported by presi- dents, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson were particularly strong support- ers, and the Supreme Court has generally ruled in favor of the centralist position.

Centralists reject the idea of the Constitution as an interstate compact. They view it as a supreme law established by the people. The national government is an agent of

centralists People who favor national action over action at the state and local levels.

decentralists People who favor state or local action rather than national action.

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 74 11/19/12 1:44 PM

75

the people, not of the states, because it was the people who drew up the Constitution and created the national government. They intended that the national political process should define the central government’s powers and that the national government be denied authority only when the Constitution clearly prohibits it from acting.

Centralists argue that the national government is a government of all the peo- ple, whereas each state speaks for only some of the people. Although the Tenth Amendment clearly reserves powers for the states, it does not deny the national government the authority to exercise all of its powers to the fullest extent. Moreover, the supremacy of the national government restricts the states because governments representing part of the people cannot be allowed to interfere with a government representing all of them.

THE dECENTRALIST pOSITION Among those favoring the decentralist or states’ rights interpretation were the Anti-Federalists, Thomas Jefferson, the pre–Civil War statesman from South Carolina John C. Calhoun, the Supreme Court from the 1920s to 1937, and, more recently, Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, the Republican leaders of Congress, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and cur- rent Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Most decentralists contend that the Constitution is basically a compact among sovereign states that created the central government and gave it limited authority. Thus the national government is little more than an agent of the states, and every one of its powers should be narrowly defined. Any question about whether the states have given a

states’ rights Po w e r s e x p r e s s l y o r i m p l i c i t l y reserved to the states.

States have the power to prohibit texting while driving for their citizens, while the federal government has the power to prohibit texting while driving for truck and bus drivers engaged in interstate commerce.

2.1

2.2

2.5

2.3

2.4

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 75 11/19/12 1:44 PM

76

2.1

2.2

2.5

2.3

2.4

ongress authorizes programs, establishes general rules for how the pro- grams will operate, and decides whether room should be left for state or local discretion and how much. Most important, Congress appropriates the funds for these programs and generally has deeper pockets than even

the richest states. National grants are one of Congress’s most potent tools for influenc- ing policy at the state and local levels.

National grants serve four purposes, the most important of which is the fourth:

1. To supply state and local governments with revenue 2. To establish minimum national standards for such things as highways and

clean air 3. To equalize resources among the states by taking money from people with high

incomes through national taxes and spending it, through grants, in states where the poor live

4. To attack national problems but minimize the growth of national agencies

Types of National Government Grants National, or federal, grants can be classified on two separate dimensions: (1) how much discretion the national government uses in making the grant decision and, (2) what kinds of requirements the national government puts on how the funding can be spent. There are four types of national grants to the states: (1) project grants, (2) formula grants, (3) categorical grants, and (4) block grants (sometimes called flexible grants). According to the national government’s 2011 tracking reports, states received about $25 billion in

Analyze the budget as a tool of federalism, and evaluate its impact on state and local governments.

2.4

particular function to the central government or have reserved it for themselves should be resolved in favor of the states.

Decentralists believe that the national government should not interfere with activities reserved for the states. Their argument is based on the Tenth Amendment, which states: “The 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.” Decentralists insist that state governments are closer to the people and reflect the peo- ple’s wishes more accurately than the national government does.

Decentralists have been particularly supportive of the devolution revolution, which argues for returning responsibilities to the states.34 In the 1990s, the Republican- controlled Congress gave states more authority over some programs such as welfare, and President Clinton also proclaimed, “The era of big government is over.” However, he tempered his comments by adding, “But we cannot go back to the time when our citizens were left to fend for themselves,” and despite its dramatic name, the revolution has fallen short of the hoped-for results.

The national government has continued to enact laws regulating the states. Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, for example, Congress passed a long list of laws giving states specific responsibilities for defending homeland security, including the implementation of national criteria for issuing driver’s licenses. It has also ordered states not to sell any citizen’s personal information to private companies, ended state regulation of mutual funds, nullified state laws that restrict telecommunication com- petition, and given the national judiciary the power to prosecute a number of state and local crimes, including carjacking and acts of terrorism.

The National Budget as a Tool of Federalism

C

devolution revolution The effort to slow the growth of the national government by returning many functions to the states.

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 76 11/19/12 1:44 PM

77

2.1

2.2

2.5

2.3

2.4

project grants that year, $485 billion in formula grants, $682 billion in categorical grants, and $9 billion in block grants.35 (As we shall see below, these grant totals often contain a mix of different kinds of grants—for example, categorical grants often contain formula grants. Thus, the total of all grants to the states in 2010 was $600 billion. By 2016, the president’s budget office estimates that the total will rise by another $100 billion.36)

pROjECT GRANTS The national government supports states through project grants for specific activities, such as scientific research, homeland security, and some edu- cation programs. Most project grants are awarded through a competitive process following an application process. Project grants are generally restricted to a fixed amount of time and can only be spent within tight guidelines. Many university- based medical schools rely on project grants to support their efforts to cure life- threatening diseases such as cancer and heart disease. In order for a state or local government to receive funding through a project grant, the state or local government must apply for the funding. This gives the grantor the discretion to approve some applications and reject others based typically on the technical requirements of the individual grant program.

FORmULA GRANTS Formula grants are distributed to the states based on proce- dures set out in the granting legislation. The simplest formula is population—each recipient government receives a certain number of dollars for each person who lives in the jurisdiction. More complex formulas might define the target population—for example, the number of people below the poverty line or above the age of 65. Other formulas do not involve people at all, but specific measures of a problem such as the number of boarded-up houses in a state. Early rounds of homeland security funding were based largely on a population formula, while the most recent rounds have taken both population and the risk of a terrorist attack into consideration in granting funds to state and local governments.

CATEGORICAL GRANTS Categorical grants are made for specific purposes; hence, the term “categorical.” Categorical grants for specific purposes, such as Medicaid health care for the poor, are tightly monitored to ensure that the money is spent exactly as directed. Categorical grants have the most strings attached—state and local govern- ments need to conform to all aspects of the funding legislation in order to receive the national funds. Although states have leeway in deciding how some categorical grants can be spent for programs such as highway construction, the national government often attaches strings to the overall category. Categorical grants involve the largest amount of federal support, but often require the states to match some percentage of each national dollar.

bLOCK GRANTS Block grants are made for more generalized governmental func- tions such as public assistance, health services, child care, or community develop- ment. By definition, these blocks of funding are provided with very few requirements attached. States have great flexibility in deciding how to spend block grant dollars, but unlike programs such as national unemployment insurance that are guaranteed for everyone who qualifies for them, block grants are limited to specific amounts set by the national government.

These four types of grants are occasionally combined within a single program area. Some categorical grants contain formulas, for example, while block grants are generally restricted to a broad issue such as education and assistance to the poor. As the follow- ing examples demonstrate, the national government often mixes and matches the grant types to accomplish its goals:

• The National School Lunch Program is both a categorical and formula grant— school districts receive funding for each meal served to a qualified student. To receive the funding the school district must guarantee that the lunches meet U.S. Department of Agriculture nutrition standards.

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 77 11/19/12 1:44 PM

78

2.1

2.2

2.5

2.3

2.4

FOR the People Government’s Greatest Endeavors

At first glance, the national government provides only limited assistance to states and localities to support public schools and universities. National grants for education programs such as the No Child Left Behind Act enacted in the George W. Bush administration and still in effect is relatively small compared to total state and local spending, and they often come with signifi- cant unfunded mandates.

However, much of the national government’s sup- port for state and local education is hidden from view. In the 1940s and 1950s, for example, the national govern- ment gave returning World War II veterans the tuition to earn college degrees through the GI Bill. These tui- tion grants, not loans, helped thousands of veterans get better jobs, purchase homes, and rebuild the economy, which was suffering from a post-war slump.

Out of 15 million eligible veterans, 8 million went to college or training programs. In 1947 alone, vet- erans accounted for nearly half of all college enroll- ment. According to past research by Congress, every dollar invested over the life of the program generated between $5 and $12.50 in tax revenues from veterans whose college education gave them better jobs and higher salaries than they otherwise would have had.*

The GI Bill exists to this day, and covers college tui- tion for veterans of all recent wars, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The national government also provides significant support to help rebuild public schools, encourage educa- tional innovations such as charter schools, and support college students as they work toward their degrees. In 2001, for example, Congress passed the “No Child Left Behind Act,” which set national math and reading stand- ards tied to national funding for public schools. The act

remains in effect even though many states have raised objections to the strict standards.

More recently, the Obama administration launched a $4.5 billion national competition called “Race to the Top” to encourage innovative school programs through an annual competition for billions of dollars in federal funds. Of the 48 states that entered the competition, 15 states made the first cut, and Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Tennessee won grants from $75 million to $700 million.**

The GI Bill, No Child Left Behind Act, and Race to the Top show how federalism can help all levels of gov- ernment accomplish broad national goals from home- land security to disaster relief and educational reform. Sometimes the national grants can be very large as in Race to the Top, but even the relatively small amount of funding that actually reach an individual public school can motivate significant changes within our federal system.

QUESTIONS 1. What are some of the advantages of national

and local governments working collectively on problems like education? What are the disadvantages?

2. Why might state and local governments want to enter competitions such as Race to the Top even when the amount of funding at stake is so small in comparison to what they spend?

3. What kind of federalism is the GI Bill tuition program? What kind of federalism is Race to the Top?

Helping States Educate Their Citizens

*Cited by the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change: The Phase III Report, (Government Printing Office, 2001), footnote 145. **Information on the competition is available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop

President Obama congratulates graduates after delivering the commencement address for Kalamazoo Central High School, winner of the 2010 Race to the Top High School Commencement Challenge, June 7, 2010.

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 78 11/19/12 1:44 PM

79

2.1

2.2

2.5

2.3

2.4

• The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is both a block and formula grant—states receive funding from the national government based on a formula that includes a number of need-based variables.

• National research grants from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health or National Science Foundation are both project and categorical in nature with strict formulas for allocating the money in making final decisions.

• The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Airport Improvement Program is both a block and project grant. The FAA takes applications and issues grants for the broad purpose of planning and developing airports in the United States.

The politics of National Grants Republicans “have consistently favored fewer strings, less national supervision, and the delegation of spending discretion to the state and local governments.”37 Democrats have generally been less supportive of broad discretionary block grants, instead favor- ing more detailed, federally supervised spending. The Republican-controlled Congress in the 1990s gave high priority to creating block grants, but it ran into trouble when it tried to lump together welfare, school lunch and breakfast programs, prenatal nutrition programs, and child protection programs in one block grant.

The battle over national versus state control of spending tends to be cyclical. As one scholar of federalism explains, “Complaints about excessive federal control tend to be followed by proposals to shift more power to state and local governments. Then, when problems arise in state and local administration—and problems inevitably arise when any organization tries to administer anything—demands for closer federal supervision and tighter federal controls follow.”38

The battle for Grants With so much funding at stake, it is not surprising that state and local government might engage in aggressive lobbying to win their fair share, especially in setting the formulas that dictate funding within many grants. Whether by using their connections

The national government’s school lunch program provides basic support for undernourished children, and is administered by local public school districts under state guidelines. The program is an example of cooperative federalism.

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 79 11/19/12 1:44 PM

80

The national government collects taxes from everyone, but it doesn’t always spend money in the state where it gets it. Instead, the federal government transfers wealth from state to state. Recipient states pay less in federal taxes than they receive, while donor states pay more in taxes than they receive back. In 2007, there were 19 donor states and 31 recipient states. The political explanation for who were donor and recipient states is surprising.

Which States Win and Lose the Federal Aid Game?

Net Donor: Between $1 and $5,000 pe r person

Explore on MyPoliSciLab

Who are the Recipient States?

Concept How do we determine donor and recipient states? Per person, we subtract the federal aid dollars sent to a state from the federal tax dollars paid in a state. If the result is positive, a state is a donor state, otherwise it’s a recipient state.

Connection What relationship exists between politics and whether a state is a recipient or donor? Recipient states are most often Republican in national politics, while donor states tend to be more Democratic in national politics.

Cause Is there a policy explanation for which states are recipient states? The federal government � ghts poverty by moving money around the country. Recipient states usually have higher poverty levels and lower average incomes. Therefore, they tend to pay less federal tax than they receive per person.

Investigate Further

SOURCE: Data from United States Internal Revenue Service; Statistical Abstract of the United States 2012; and U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 2010.

Who pays? DELAWARE, MINNESOTA, NEW JERSEY, and CONNECTICUT all paid at least $6,000 more in federal taxes per person than they received in federal aid.

15 other states were net donors.

Who receives? ALASKA took in twice the federal money in 2007 that it paid in taxes. 31 states are recipient states. Of the top six recipient states, four are southern.

Recipient states by party

Recipient states by poverty level

Connecticut $6,241

Ohio $49

Georgia $434

Washington $773

Wisconsin $1,000

Delaware $12,285

Minnesota $7,431

New Jersey $6,644

North Carolina $1,108

California $1,466 Nevada $1,616

Arkansas $1,723

Massachusetts $2,133

Colorado $2,176

Nebraska $2,850 Texas

$2,243

Rhode Island $2,732 Illinois $3,640

New York $4,502

Net Donor: Over $5,000 Per Person

Net Recipient: Between $1 and $5,000 per person

Alabama –$5,130

Hawaii –$4983

North Dakota –$4,856

South Dakota –$4,414

Maine –$4,221 Montana –$4,149

Alaska –$7,448

Mississippi –$6,765

Virginia –$6,239

New Mexico –$7,143

West Virginia –$5,820

South Carolina –$3,756 Kentucky –$3,012 Maryland –$3,010 Vermont –$2,854 Louisiana –$2,180

Arizona –$1,976

Idaho –$1,281 Wyoming –$1,205 Missouri –$1,190

Iowa –$1,075

Utah –$792 Indiana –$723

Tennessee –$603 Florida –$581 Oregon –$474

Pennsylvania –$385

Oklahoma –$376

New Hampshire –$349

Michigan –$171 Kansas –$154

Net Recipient: Over $5,000 Per Person

69% 63%

53%

Low Average High

78%

63%

41%

18 out of 23 Republican- voting states (78%) are recipient states compared to 8 out of the 19 Democratic- voting states (42%).

9 of 13 states with high poverty levels are recipient states (69%), while only 9 of 17 states with low poverty levels are recipient states (53%).

SWING

INfoGrAPhICS To ComE M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 80 11/19/12 1:44 PM

81

with members of Congress or the president, or by direct lobbying through their state offices in Washington or their national trade associations, state and local governments often intervene at several points in the funding process.

First, the specific instructions Congress develops in allocating formula grants involves often-intricate negotiation. Small changes in the terms—or the weight that the terms carry—in a given formula can advantage some states and disadvantage oth- ers. It is now a simple matter for states to analyze various proposed formulas in new legislation and to calculate how well they will do using each of those the rival formulas. Second, when a grant program is project-oriented, state and local governments often employ professional grant writers who know the inside workings of the national grant- making process and so know how to orient grant applications to make them more attractive to the officials who review the proposals. And third, state officials generally prefer (and lobby Congress for) block grants that have fewer restrictions on how the states can spend the funding to categorical grants that have more restrictions. In tough financial times when the competition for national grants increases, lobbying becomes increasingly more common.

Unfunded mandates Fewer national dollars do not necessarily mean fewer national controls. On the contrary, the national government has imposed mandates on states and local governments, often without providing national funds. State and local officials complained about this, and their protests were effective. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 was championed by then-House Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich as part of the GOP’s Contract with America. The act was considered part of what commentators called the “Newt Federalism.”

The law requires Congress to evaluate the impact of unfunded mandates and imposes mild constraints on Congress itself. A congressional committee that approves any legislation containing a national mandate must draw attention to the mandate in its report and describe its cost to state and local governments. If the committee intends any mandate to be partially unfunded, it must explain why it is appropriate for state and local governments to pay for it.

At least during its first 15 years, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act has been mostly successful in restraining mandates.39 According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the national government has enacted only 11 laws since 1995 that impose unfunded mandates. Three of these unfunded mandates involved increases in the minimum wage that apply to all state and local employees.40

The Politics of Federalism Evaluate the current relationship between the national and state governments and the future challenges for federalism.

2.5

he formal structures of our federal system have not changed much since 1787, but the political realities, especially during the past half-century, have greatly altered the way federalism works. To understand these changes, we  need to look at some of the trends that continue to fuel the debate

about the meaning of federalism.

The Growth of National Government Throughout the past two centuries, power has accrued to the national government. As the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations observed in a 1981 report, “No one planned the growth, but everyone played a part in it.”41

T

2.1

2.2

2.5

2.4

2.3

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 81 11/19/12 1:44 PM

82

2.1

2.4

2.2

2.3

2.5

BY the People

Governments and other organizations produce enor-mous amounts of information every year on how states raise and spend money, where people live, and even how they travel, eat, and spend their free time.

However, as the amount of information has expanded rapidly over the decade, new organizations have become engaged in helping citizens “mash-up” the data to reveal trends, ratings, and rankings in how their own states compare with other states. Using what some experts call “data-scraping” computer programs, these organizations allow citizens to track the issues and problems that matter most to them, while exploring pos- sible causes and effects along the way. In doing so, they can keep track of what their governments are doing to encourage or discourage particular behaviors and make informed judgments about how to solve public problems.

Datamasher.org is one of the new Web sites dedi- cated to helping advance citizen knowledge. With hun- dreds of information sources to work with, you are free to search for patterns in topics like the number of fast-food restaurants and the level of obesity in your state. The question in this specific mash-up is whether the number of these restaurants somehow relates to obesity.

In some states such as Colorado, the ratio of res- taurants to obesity is relatively low, compared with much higher levels in other states such as Kansas. Recognizing that correlation is not causation, the mash- up does not prove that higher obesity leads to more fast-food restaurants, or vice versa. But, mash-up

provides an interesting way of thinking about whether some trends are related to each other in your state and suggests questions deserving more rigorous investiga- tion. Simply asked, are there some conditions that lead to a stronger relationship between the two measures in Kansas than its next-door neighbor Colorado?

Datamasher.org also allows you to create your own mash-ups built on specific questions you might have. What is the relationship between the divorce rate and high school graduation rate? What is the relationship between smoking and cancer? What is the relationship between a high SAT score and having a solar panel on your house? These mash-ups produce maps and tables that show what is happening in your state, and sug- gest many ideas for moving your state up or down the rankings.

QUESTIONS 1. How could keeping track of statistics about

your state be a way to hold government accountable for what it does?

2. Is there too much information now available on what governments do and how problems relate to each other? Are rankings of states a good way to improve the way governments operate and make decisions?

3. What are the risks of using data mash-ups to make a case for government action?

Making a Difference

Do a Data Mash-up on Your State

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 82 11/19/12 1:44 PM

83

2.1

2.4

2.2

2.3

2.5

This shift occurred for a variety of reasons. One is that many of our problems have become national in scope. Much that was local in 1789, in 1860, or in 1930 is now national, even global. State governments could supervise the relationships between small merchants and their few employees, for instance, but only the national gov- ernment can supervise relationships between multinational corporations and their thousands of worldwide employees, many of whom are organized in national unions.

As the economy grew rapidly during the early nineteenth century, powerful interests made demands on the national government. Business groups called on the government for aid in the form of tariffs, a national banking system, subsidies to railroads and the merchant marine, and uniform rules on the environment. And com- panies such as automobile makers that sell their products in all states typically prefer one national set of regulations rather than a different set in every state. Farmers learned that the national government could give more aid than the states, and they too began to demand help. By the beginning of the twentieth century, urban groups in general and organized labor in particular were pressing their claims. Big business, big agriculture, and big labor all added up to big government.

The growth of the national economy and the creation of national transportation and communications networks altered people’s attitudes toward the national govern- ment. Before the Civil War, citizens saw the national government as a distant, even foreign, entity. Today, in part because of television and the Internet, most people know more about Washington than they know about their state capitals, and they know more about the president and their national legislators than about their governor, their state legislators, or even the local officials who run their cities and schools. Voter turnout in local elections is generally lower than in state elections and lower in state elections than in presidential elections.

The Great Depression of the 1930s stimulated extensive national action on wel- fare, unemployment, and farm surpluses. World War II brought federal regulation of wages, prices, and employment, as well as national efforts to allocate resources, train personnel, and support engineering and inventions. After the war, the national govern- ment helped veterans obtain college degrees and inaugurated a vast system of support for university research. The United States became the most powerful leader of the free world, maintaining substantial military forces even in times of peace.

Although economic and social conditions created many of the pressures for expanding the national government, so did political claims. Once established, federal programs generate groups with vested interests in promoting, defending, and expand- ing them. Associations are formed and alliances are made. “In a word, the growth of government has created a constituency of, by, and for government.”42 The national budget can become a negative issue for Congress and the president if it grows too large, however. In 2011–2012, for example, Congress and the president adopted deep cuts in federal aid to the states in an effort to reduce the federal deficit. The cuts were needed to reassure financial markets that the United States was making progress to reduce its rapidly increasing debt.

The politics of federalism are changing, and Congress is being pressured to reduce the size and scope of national programs, while dealing with the demands for home- land security. Meanwhile, the cost of entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare is rising because there are more older people with chronic health conditions, and they are living longer. These programs have widespread public support: to cut them is politically risky. “With all other options disappearing, it is politically tempting to finance tax cuts by turning over to the states many of the social programs…that have become the responsibility of the national government.”43

The Future of Federalism During recent decades, state governments have undergone a major transformation. Most have improved their governmental structures, taken on greater roles in funding education and welfare, launched programs to help distressed cities, expanded their tax

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 83 11/19/12 1:44 PM

84

2.1

2.4

2.2

2.3

2.5

bases by allowing citizens to deduct their state and local taxes from the national income tax, and assumed greater roles in maintaining homeland security and in fighting corporate corruption.

After the civil rights revolution of the 1960s, segregationists feared that national officials would work for racial integration. Thus, they praised local government, emphasized the dangers of centralization, and argued that the protection of civil rights was not a proper function of the national government. As one political scientist observed, “Federalism has a dark history to overcome. For nearly 200 years, states’ rights have been asserted to protect slavery, segregation, and discrimination.”44

Today, the politics of federalism, even with respect to civil rights, is more complicated than in the past. The national government is not necessarily more sympathetic to the claims of minorities than state or city governments are. Rulings on same-sex marriages and “civil unions” by state courts interpreting their state constitu- tions have extended more protection for these rights than has the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Other states, however, are passing legislation that would eliminate such protections, and opponents are pressing for a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriages.

The national government is not likely to retreat to a more passive role. Indeed, international terrorism, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and rising deficits have sub- stantially altered the underlying economic and social conditions that generated the demand for federal action. In addition to such traditional challenges as helping peo- ple find jobs and preventing inflation and depressions—which still require national action—combating terrorism and surviving in a global economy based on the informa- tion explosion, e-commerce, and advancing technologies have added countless new issues to the national agenda.

Most American citizens have strong attachments to the Constitution’s federal sys- tem measured broadly to mean all levels of government. However, they remain highly critical of the politicians who run government and are often angry at the stalemates in their national, state, and local legislatures. Although Americans still trust their state and local governments more than the national government in Washington, D.C., they are increasingly reluctant to give their states and localities a ringing endorsement.

Federalism can be a source of great reward for the nation, especially when it allows states to lead the nation in creating new programs to address problems such as poverty, global warming, and health care access. If the people cannot move the national govern- ment toward action, they can always push their state and local governments. By giving them different leverage points to make a difference, the Constitution guarantees that government is by the people.

Federalism can also be a source of enormous frustration, especially when national and state governments disagree on basic issues such as civil rights and liberties. This is when the people need to step forward not as citizens of their states but as citizens of the nation as a whole. Even as they influence their state and local governments, the people must understand they have a national voice that often needs to be heard.

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 84 11/19/12 1:44 PM

85

Defining Federalism

Review the Chapter Listen to Chapter 2 on MyPoliSciLab

A federal system is one in which the constitution divides powers between the central government and lower-level gov- ernments such as states or provinces. But, over time, there has been support for different balances between state and govern- ment power such as the shift from dual federalism to marble cake federalism. The federal system in the United States does protect us from tyranny, permit local variation in policy, and encourage experimentation, but it comes at the cost of greater complexity, conflict, and difficulty in determining exactly which level of government is responsible for providing which goods and services that citizens might demand.

Interpret the definitions of federalism, and assess the advantages and disadvantages of the American system of federalism, p. 59.

2.1

The Constitution gives three types of powers to the national and state governments: delegated powers to the national gov- ernment, reserve powers for the states, and concurrent pow- ers that the national and state governments share. Beyond delegated powers, the national government also has implied powers under the necessary and proper clause and inherent powers during periods of war and national crisis.

The national government’s power over the states stems primarily from several constitutional pillars: the national supremacy clause, the war powers, its powers to regulate commerce among the states to tax and spend, and its power to do what Congress thinks is necessary and proper to pro- mote the general welfare and to provide for the common defense. These constitutional pillars have permitted tremen- dous expansion of the functions of the national government.

The Constitutional Structure of American Federalism

Differentiate the powers the Constitution provides to national and state governments, p. 66.2.2

The National Courts and Federalism

Assess the role of the national courts in defining the relationship between the national and state govern- ments, and evaluate the positions of decentralists and centralists, p. 72.

2.3

in decisions such as Gibbons v. Ogden and McCulloch v. Maryland, asserted the power of the national government over the states and promoted a national economic common market. These decisions also reinforced the supremacy of the national government over the states.

Today, debates about federalism are less often about its constitutional structure than about whether action should come from the national or the state and local levels. Recent Supreme Court decisions favor a decentralist position and signal shifts in the Court’s interpretation of the constitu- tional nature of our federal system.

The major instruments of national intervention in state pro- grams have been various kinds of financial grants-in-aid, of which the most prominent are categorical grants, formula grants, project grants, and block grants. The national govern- ment also imposes federal mandates and controls activities of state and local governments by other means.

The National Budget as a Tool of Federalism

Analyze the budget as a tool of federalism, and evaluate its impact on state and local governments, p. 76.

2.4

The national government has grown dramatically through- out the past 200 years. Its budget dwarfs many state budgets combined. As it has grown, the national government has asked states to do more on its behalf. States have pressed back against the national government, however, and continue to fight for their authority to use powers that are reserved for them under the Constitution.

The Politics of Federalism

Evaluate the current relationship between the national and state governments and the future challenges for federalism, p. 81.

2.5

Watch the Video at myanthrolab

Study and Review the Pre-Test and Flashcards at myanthrolab

Read the Document at myanthrolab

Read the Document The Title of the Document Goes Here at myanthrolab

View the Image at myanthrolab

Map the Concepts at myanthrolab

Explore the Concept at myanthrolab

Simulate the Experiment at myanthrolab

Listen to the Audio File at myanthrolab

Read and Listen to Chapter 2 at myanthrolab

Read the Document at myanthrolab Sample Document Title Text

Map the Concepts at myanthrolab Sample Concept Title Text

Margin sample

The national courts umpire the division of power between the national and state governments. The Marshall Court,

On MyPoliSciLab

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 85 11/19/12 1:44 PM

86

federalism, p. 59 unitary system, p. 61 confederation, p. 61 delegated (express) powers, p. 66 implied powers, p. 66 necessary and proper clause, p. 66 inherent powers, p. 66

supremacy clause, p. 67 commerce clause, p. 67 federal mandate, p. 68 reserve powers, p. 68 concurrent powers, p. 68 full faith and credit clause, p. 71 extradition, p. 71

interstate compact, p. 71 national supremacy, p. 72 preemption, p. 73 centralists, p. 74 decentralists, p. 74 states’ rights, p. 75 devolution revolution, p. 76

Learn the Terms Study and Review the Flashcards

Watch the Video at myanthrolab

Study and Review the Pre-Test and Flashcards at myanthrolab

Read the Document at myanthrolab

Read the Document The Title of the Document Goes Here at myanthrolab

View the Image at myanthrolab

Map the Concepts at myanthrolab

Explore the Concept at myanthrolab

Simulate the Experiment at myanthrolab

Listen to the Audio File at myanthrolab

Read and Listen to Chapter 2 at myanthrolab

Read the Document at myanthrolab Sample Document Title Text

Map the Concepts at myanthrolab Sample Concept Title Text

Margin sample

mULTIpLE CHOICE QUESTIONS

2.1 Interpret the definitions of federalism, and assess the advantages and disadvantages of the American system of federalism. Canada has a central government in Ottawa, the nation’s capital, along with ten provinces and three territories, each of which has its own government. According to Canada’s constitution, both the provinces and the central government have powers to tax and regulate individual citizens. Which type of government best describes Canada? a. A unitary state b. A cooperative federalist state c. A confederation d. A territorial union e. A competitive federalist state

2.2 Differentiate the powers the Constitution provides to national and state governments. Determine whether the following powers are delegated to the national government, reserved for the states, or shared by both: a. Power to establish courts b. Power to tax citizens and businesses c. Power to regulate interstate commerce d. Power to oversee primary and elementary education e. Power to make war

2.3 Assess the role of the national courts in defining the relationship between the national and state governments, and evaluate the positions of decentralists and centralists. Which of the following arguments support the decentralist case? a. The Constitution is a compact among sovereign states. b. The national government is an agent of the states. c. The national government should not interfere with

activities reserved to the states. d. State governments reflect the people’s wishes more

accurately than the national government. e. All of the above

Test Yourself Study and Review the Practice Tests

Watch the Video at myanthrolab

Study and Review the Pre-Test and Flashcards at myanthrolab

Read the Document at myanthrolab

Read the Document The Title of the Document Goes Here at myanthrolab

View the Image at myanthrolab

Map the Concepts at myanthrolab

Explore the Concept at myanthrolab

Simulate the Experiment at myanthrolab

Listen to the Audio File at myanthrolab

Read and Listen to Chapter 2 at myanthrolab

Read the Document at myanthrolab Sample Document Title Text

Map the Concepts at myanthrolab Sample Concept Title Text

Margin sample

2.4 Analyze the budget as a tool of federalism, and evaluate its impact on state and local governments. Which of the following are examples of a federal mandate: a. The New York state legislature passes a law requiring

all New York school teachers to spend ten hours a year learning new teaching techniques.

b. Congress passes a law requiring all coal plants in the United States to reduce their carbon emissions by 30 percent by 2015.

c. The Supreme Court upholds a law requiring teenage women to get parental permission before having an abortion.

d. The Federal Emergency Management Agency sends funds from the national government to help clean up after a tornado.

e. Congress passes an increase in the minimum wage that applies to all state and local employees.

2.5 Evaluate the current relationship between the national and state governments and the future challenges for federalism. What is a likely future for federalism? a. Congress may reduce the size of national programs. b. Homeland security will be turned over to the states. c. There will be many new issues on the national agenda. d. The national government will become more passive. e. The decentralist position will prevail.

ESSAy QUESTION

In a few sentences, discuss the “constitutional counterrevolution” instigated by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and continued by Chief Justice John Roberts. Why is preemption such a powerful tool for influencing state governments? Use this answer to write an essay appraising whether the balance of governmental power should lean more toward either the national government or the states.

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 86 11/19/12 1:44 PM

87

IN THE LIbRARy Samuel H. Beer, To Make a Nation: The Rediscovery of American

Federalism (Harvard University Press, 1993). Michael Burgess, Comparative Federalism Theory and Practice

(Routledge, 2006). Center For The Study Of Federalism, The Federalism Report

(published quarterly by Temple University; this publication notes research, books and articles, and scholarly conferences).

Center For The Study Of Federalism, Publius: The Journal of Federalism (published quarterly by Temple University; one issue each year is an “Annual Review of the State of American Federalism”; Web site is www.lafayette.edu/˜publius).

Timothy J. Conlan, From New Federalism to Devolution: Twenty- Five Years of Intergovernmental Reforms (Brookings Institution Press, 1998).

Daniel J. Elazar And John Kincaid, eds., The Covenant Connection: From Federal Theology to Modern Federalism (Lexington Books, 2000).

Allison L. Lacroix The Ideological Origins of American Federalism (Harvard University Press, 2010).

John D. Nugent Safeguarding Federalism: How States Protect Their Interests in National Policymaking (University of Oklahoma Press, 2009).

Pietro Nivola, Tense Commandments: Federal Prescriptions and City Problems (Brookings Institution Press, 2002).

Explore Further

John T. Noonan, Narrowing the Nation’s Power: The Supreme Court Sides with the States (University of California Press, 2002).

William H. Riker, The Development of American Federalism (Academic Press, 1987).

Denise Scheberle, Federalism and Environmental Policy: Trust and the Politics of Implementation (Georgetown University Press, 2004).

Kevin Smith, ed., State and Local Government, 2008–2009 (CQ Press, 2008).

Carl Van Horn, ed., The State of the States, 4th ed. (CQ Press, 2008).

ON THE wEb www.ncsl.org The top source of information on pending legislative action and policy controversy in the states. www.nga.org The primary Web site for the state governors. www.USASpending.gov The national government’s summary of all spending activity. Includes charts and graphs on overall spending trends and amounts of funding dedicated to state governments. www.governing.com The Web site for the major national magazine on state and local governments.

M02_MAGL4008_25_SE_02.indd 87 11/19/12 1:44 PM