The Evolution of US Federalism
US federalism has been in a persistent state of evolution throughout the US history. This evident by the continuing changes in the way the term is being interpreted. Three examples of these changes can be gleaned from the meaning given to the term during the following eras: prior to the Civil War with the nullification doctrine, the period between the Civil War and the 1930s with the dual federalism, and contemporary times that saw the rise of modern federalism.
The nullification doctrine emerged during the time of Jefferson and Madison. The two initially proposed the doctrine to object to the federal law that prohibited and punished newspaper editor for write-ups that were critical to the government. The doctrine gave the states the right to declare a federal law null and void on the grounds of unconstitutionality. Later, the doctrine was used to block other federal laws not agreeable to some states, such as the federal tariff and the federal law on slavery. The Civil War settled the issue and the SC affirmed that states cannot declare the acts of Congress as unconstitutional (Wilson et al 2013, p. 89)
The doctrine of dual federalism emerged after the Civil War when the issue of the commerce clause of the US Constitution was being debated. Article 1, s 8 of the Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with the following entities: foreign governments, among the states, and with the Indian tribes. It was decided that the provision should be interpreted to mean that Congress should only regulate interstate commerce, but the states should have power over intra-state commerce (Wilson 2008, p. 77). Under the principle of dual federalism, the states and the federal government were considered equal with their own respective roles and obligations in exercising sovereign powers, but in entirely different matters (Sollow and Henschen 2008, p. 59).
Modern federalism has eschewed dual federalism, and the concerns of sovereignty and military capacity are now entirely within the purview of the national government. This does not mean, however, that the states are entirely powerless. Federalism has gone beyond the simple division of powers, but has become a complex system of political arrangement where the states have become responsible for the economic growth of the country as a whole under a system of economic autonomy (Petersen 2012, p. 10-11).
Factors that allowed federalism to shape American Political Behavior
There are several factors why federalism has and continues to shape American political behavior. One factor is that public pressure at the national level is so strong that it can compel states to change their policies. The resources and the exposure of the national government are greater than those in individual states and government pressure group at this level is very strong. It has the capability to force individual states to change their policies (Woll p. 76). This was illustrated by the passage of the Civil Rights Act 1866 that eventually prevailed over states’ opposition to the grant of citizenship rights to blacks after the Civil War (Rodriguez p. 633).
Another factor that allows federalism to shape American political behavior is the deeper pocket of the national government that allows it to impose policies and reward abiding states in the form of federal grants and assistance. This power is called fiscal federalism. Federal grants are an important source of funds for the states. Grants may either be categorical or block grants. In the former, the national government controls how the state uses the funds by requiring certain conditions to be met. Although the latter allows states greater leeway, the national government can still control the use of the money through cross-cutting requirements, such as discriminatory use of the funds under federal laws (Sidlow and Henschen 2008, p. 66).
Another factor that allows federalism to impact state political behavior is the courts, which plays a big role in tilting the balance between federal government and state impact on policies. Of late, the US Supreme Court has held in Arizona v US, 567 U.S. ___ (2012) that states cannot pass laws that preempt or come in conflict with existing federal immigration laws. Similarly, the Court has also upheld Obama’s Affordable Care Act against the unconstitutional challenge of 26 states (cited McKay 2013, p. 83).
Relationship of the States and the Federal Government to American Policies
The relationship between the federal government and states helps shape the outcome of a federal policy or even influences federal policy. If the relationship between the federal government and a state is not established with respect to information and expertise, a federal policy is less likely to have effective enforcement because it is the state that enforces such polices. For example, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services – a federal agency – had a limited understanding of and had fewer resources to implement the HIPAA or Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. This made the states the controlling entities with respect to the law’s implementation. With no incentives to comply on the part of the states, the result was a haphazard implementation of the law (Doonan 2013, p. 96). The lack of coordination between federal and state agencies has also resulted in undermining the implementation of criminal laws and the effectiveness of the government against criminality as well as sow confusion. This is often illustrated by the turf war in drug cases between the federal Drug Enforcement Agency and local district attorney offices. The DA’s office of a certain locality can seek the arrest of a DEA agent confiscating marijuana if possession up to a certain amount is legal in the state, but illegal under federal laws (Jones and Mortin 2002, p. 56).
References
Doonan, M. 2013. American Federalism in Practice: The Formulation and Implementation of Contemporary Health Policy. Brookings Institution Press.
Jones, P. and Mortin, J. (2002). Marijuana: Early Experience With Four States' Laws That Allow Use for Medical Purposes. DIANE Publishing.
McKay, D. (2013). American Politics and Society. John Wiley & Sons.
Petersen, P. (2012). The Price of Federalism. Brookings Institution Press.
Rodriguez, J. (1997). The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery. ABC-CLIO.
Sidlow, E. and Henschen, B. (2008). America at Odds, Alternate Edition. Cengage Learning,
Wilson, J. (2008). American Government: Brief Edition. Cengage Learning.
Wilson, J., DiIulio, Jr., J. and Bose, M. (2013). American Government: Brief Version. Cengage Learning.
Woll, P. (1981). Public Policy. University Press of America.
