POL201 Gun Control Act Federal Law Paper Prepare: Prior to beginning work on this discussion question, read Chapters 3 and 4 in American Government, and re

POL201 Gun Control Act Federal Law Paper Prepare: Prior to beginning work on this discussion question, read Chapters 3 and 4 in American Government, and review the Week 2 Instructor Guidance. In addition, watch the videos provided on federalism: Quick Study of Federalism Part 1 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., Quick Study of Federalism Part 2 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., and Quick Study of Federalism Part 3 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. Review the Week 2 assignment and the Final Paper assignment for more guidance regarding selecting your policy for your Final Paper, which you will also utilize for this discussion.

Reflect: The U.S. government’s expansive role in public policy is caught in a swirl of conflicting crosscurrents. On the one hand, popular expectations about government’s responsibility to solve problems often exceed the capacity of state and local authorities to respond effectively. On the other hand, policies developed at the national level may not sufficiently reflect the great diversity of interests across the United States to be effective at the local level. Moreover, the search for effective policy is further complicated by theoretical debates about the constitutional framework of federalism. That is, what limits on national power can be derived from the 10th amendment?

Write: Select a specific policy or piece of legislation that you are interested in and that directly impacts your current or future profession (i.e., your major). For examples, go to the Week 2 DQ and Final Paper Policy Examples file located in your online classroom. The policy you select should be the same policy that you research for your Final Paper.

In your initial post,

Identify your profession or future profession, and provide a brief background on the typical job responsibilities.
Discuss what federalism is and why it is important.
Discuss your policy or piece of legislation that you have selected for your Final Paper and how federalism impacts it.
Discuss the federalism challenges that the policy you have selected is creating or facing.

For example:

If you are an education major, how are local, state, and federal government policies affected by the Every Student Succeeds Act or some other piece of education-related legislation?
If you are a criminal justice major, how does recent legalization of marijuana in some states affect local, state, and federal marijuana laws?
If you are a business major, how does the insurance mandate in the Affordable Care Act affect local, state, and national businesses and their employees?
If you are a political science major, how has the recent Citizen’s United ruling affected the amount of money available for campaigns at the local, state, or federal levels? 3
Federalism
© Ron Chapple/Corbis
Learning Objectives
By the end of this chapter, you should be able to
•
•
•
•
•
•
Analyze the division of power and authority between the states and the national government.
Describe and interpret the concept of federalism.
Describe contemporary federalism as intergovernmental relations.
Outline the historical phases of federalism.
Analyze the meaning of federalism today.
Describe the future of federalism.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 53
3/24/16 1:39 PM
Federal Division of Power and Authority
Section 3.1
In April 2010, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a statute requiring state and local
police to enforce the existing federal immigration law. The statute was passed because state
legislators and the Arizona governor believed it was time to reduce the number of Mexican
immigrants illegally crossing the U.S. border into Arizona. While federal law requires that
immigrants carry proof of either citizenship or documents proving their right to be in the
United States, under the new state law, officers who suspect someone of being in the United
States illegally can demand to see the appropriate papers and, if warranted, make an arrest.
Federal officials objected to the new Arizona law because they maintained that only the federal government may create immigration policy, and Arizona has no business interfering
with federal authority. A federal district court upheld some but not all sections of the state
statute. The state of Arizona appealed the ruling, and the case was later heard by the U.S.
Supreme Court. At issue was the rightful power and authority of state governments in relationship to federal authority. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Arizona v. United
States in a 5–3 decision (Associate Justice Elena Kagan took no part in the case) to uphold the
state-level requirement that state and local police could check immigration status during law
enforcement stops. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down three other provisions of the statute
because they violated the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause requiring that state laws may
not conflict with national laws.
This case nicely illustrates several questions about the meaning of federalism, a term that
describes the U.S. system of dividing power and authority, derived from the people, between
the national and state governments. Does Arizona have the authority to enact the statute that
it did, or does federal authority over immigration limit or deny states the right to enact statutes where state interests overlap with federal authority? Because Arizona shares its southern border with Mexico, the governor argued, Arizona had the right to enact state-level immigration legislation. The Supreme Court sided with Arizona; Arizona’s statute did not violate
the Supremacy Clause.
3.1 Federal Division of Power and Authority
The Constitution was written in very general language, which has resulted in ambiguity about
where national power and authority end and state power and authority begin, and vice versa.
Figure 3.1 illustrates how state and national governments both have their own powers but
also share the authority to perform some of the same functions. In other words, the Constitution has a built-in tension between the national government and the states. That tension has
long been part of the American experience, and it continues to be the source of political
conflict.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 54
3/24/16 1:39 PM
Federal Division of Power and Authority
Section 3.1
Figure 3.1: Chart of U.S. federalism
This figure illustrates the separate and shared powers of the national and state governments.
© 2013 Mr. Kindred’s U.S. History Blog.
National Power
The U.S. Constitution sets up a system where national power is shared with state governments. This is called a federal system. The national government is part of a federal system.
When addressing the national government, one is referring specifically to the highest level of
government in a federal system. At the same time, the phrase “federal government” is used
interchangeably with “national government” when referring to the highest level of government in a federal system. The two principal bases for national power are found in the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The Commerce Clause, found in
Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and
among the several states,” which allows the national government to regulate various activities
related to interstate commerce. For example, the national government may create environmental regulations because pollution crosses state lines.
The Supremacy Clause gives the Constitution and national laws authority over the states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be 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 be Contrary notwithstanding.
The Supremacy Clause addresses those times when state or local laws conflict with national
laws or the U.S. Constitution. In these instances, the Constitution and the national laws prevail.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 55
3/24/16 1:39 PM
Federal Division of Power and Authority
Section 3.1
State Power
The 10th Amendment states that all powers not delegated, or specifically given, to the federal
government become powers held by the states. Put differently, if the authority to do something
is not expressly given to the national government, that power falls to the 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.” Fittingly, this is known as the “reserved powers”
clause. In contrast, federal powers are listed, or enumerated, in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution. Many argue that these powers may be interpreted in a way that expands them
beyond those listed in Article I, Section 8 through the Necessary and Proper Clause found at the
end of Article I, Section 9. This means that state powers may be limited by the national government even if those federal powers are not enumerated in Article I, Section 8.
© Reuters/Corbis
The 10 Amendment states that all powers not delegated, or specifically given, to the federal government
become powers held by the states. Put differently, if the
authority to do something is not expressly given to the
national government, that power falls to the states.
th
As we have seen, the defining feature of the American federal system is that states share power and
authority with the national government. In fact, the Bill of Rights was
intended to protect the civil liberties of the people and state sovereignty by imposing limitations
on national authority. However, in
1925, the U.S. Supreme Court began
applying key provisions of the 14th
Amendment to the states and interpreting some state laws to be in
violation of the Bill of Rights. These
interpretations have expanded the
power of the national government
while limiting state power.
Federal–state relations often hinge
on the tension between these
national and state bases of power. Consider the national No Child Left Behind Act (2001). In an
effort to improve students’ educational outcomes, this law limits states in how they regulate
education, assess student learning, and respond to student learning gains among other concerns, even though public education has been provided and regulated by the states for more
than 200 years. Regulating education has long been considered to be a reserved power under
the 10th Amendment: Absent provisions that both grant express (or enumerated) powers to
Congress and withhold them from the states, the 10th Amendment means that it is assumed
that the states are given those powers unless those powers are given specifically to Congress.
State Sovereignty Versus National Unity
What are the limits of states’ rights? The answer is not clear, as the Supremacy Clause, the
10th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment all speak to national and state power. When a
state’s interest interferes with a national interest, there are limits placed on state power.
The language of the 10th Amendment appears to limit national authority unless that national
authority is spelled out in the Constitution. According to this view, if the states are sovereign,
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 56
3/24/16 1:40 PM
Federal Division of Power and Authority
Section 3.1
there can be no national authority that interferes with that sovereignty. And yet, if there is no
national authority to limit state sovereignty, then the United States cannot be a united nation.
Recall from the discussion in Chapter 2 that there was great concern among states’ rights advocates that the states might lose their sovereignty to the national government following constitutional ratification. This was apparent with the issue of representation and the division
between free states and slave states when the Constitution was being designed. James Madison
proposed that the Three-Fifths Clause be included in the Constitution to calm fears that Southern states would become more powerful than others when counting slaves as whole persons
for the purposes of representation. Slave states were concerned that as more territories were
admitted to the union as free states, power among slave states would become diluted. Beyond
that concern, if the number of free states admitted to the union were to far outnumber slave
states, then the free states might support a constitutional amendment outlawing slavery.
John C. Calhoun (1782–1850), a South Carolina statesman, wrote a famous pamphlet
titled A Disquisition on Government, which
was published shortly after his death. Calhoun expressed concern that over time the
Southern states would be outnumbered. To
preserve state sovereignty, he proposed two
mechanisms to assert states’ rights: nullification and interposition. Both mechanisms
would allow a state to effectively decide that
a federal action does not apply to it.
Nullification would grant veto power to each
state, similar to that held by the president.
Calhoun suggested that for a bill to become
law, a majority of each state legislature, in
addition to a majority of both houses of Congress, would have to pass it. In other words, if
the legislature of just one state voted against
the measure, it would not become law.
© Corbis
South Carolina statesman John C. Calhoun
(1782–1850) was a strong advocate of states’
rights.
Nullification would also allow any state to veto anti-slavery legislation. For example, the states
would be able to veto the Missouri Compromise (1820), which allowed territories above the
368 30’ north parallel to be admitted as free states and those below it to be admitted as slave
states.
Given that each state has different interests and priorities, the likely consequence of nullification would be to effectively paralyze and limit the authority of the national government. Nullification would make the national government under the U.S. Constitution no more powerful
than it was under the Articles of Confederation.
Interposition was a less drastic proposal, but it too would have meant a weakened federal
system. With interposition, a state would have the right to oppose federal actions that it considered unconstitutional. Interposition would allow a state to assert its sovereignty by placing
a barrier between itself and the national government and deciding that a national law passed
by both houses of Congress and signed by the president does not apply within that state’s
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 57
3/24/16 1:40 PM
Understanding Federalism
Section 3.2
borders. The state would, in effect, exempt itself from following that national law. Interposition would have allowed free states admitted above the 368 30’ north parallel to declare that
the prohibition of slavery did not apply to them.
Neither nullification nor interposition ever took firm root, although the fact that the two ideas
were even suggested demonstrates the tensions organized around state and national sovereignty. Calhoun’s argument highlights the tensions built into the U.S. Constitution.
3.2 Understanding Federalism
The last chapter outlined how separation of powers serves as the cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution. Federalism is another cornerstone. As suggested by its preamble, which begins with
“We the People,” the Constitution declares that sovereignty, or the ultimate authority to govern, rests with the people. Through the Constitution, the people distribute their sovereignty
to the units of government (national and state) in a federal system.
The concept of federalism can be interpreted in multiple ways. For example, federalism might
suggest that the national government has supreme and equal authority over all 50 states.
Alternatively, federalism can mean that the national government and states enjoy equal sovereignty. The second interpretation was the dominant approach taken in the United States
from the Constitutional Convention up until the 1930s. During this period, the national government could not tell the states what to do, nor could the national government dominate the
states. Rather, the states and the national government cooperated. Beginning in the 1930s,
the federal government became more involved in domestic policy functions, and federalism
came to be understood as a relationship where the states were subordinate to the supreme
power and authority of the national government. This understanding, however, is not absolute; rather, federalism should be viewed on a scale where strict states’ rights are found on
one end while absolute national authority is found on the other end. Depending on the public’s needs, a pendulum swings back and forth between the two ends of the scale.
The Framers’ Vision
The idea of coequal state and
national sovereignty lies at the
core of the American constitutional system. Recall from
Chapter 2 that the Constitution
is a contract between the states
and the national government.
The 13 original states agreed
to enter into that contract with
the understanding that they
would not surrender their sovereignty. The phrase “We the
People,” which establishes the
principle of popular sovereignty, also refers to the people
Robert Harding/SuperStock
By establishing a federal system, the Framers rejected the
concentration of power and authority in the hands of a
­central government.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 58
3/24/16 1:40 PM
Understanding Federalism
Section 3.2
of the original 13 states coming together, thus maintaining the concept of state sovereignty.
Providing a common defense, as noted in the Preamble, required state governments to give
up their power to a strong national government.
The Framers believed that a federal system would secure individual liberties. The division
of power between a sovereign national government and individual sovereign states would
distribute power while the separation of powers among three branches of government would
ensure that citizen rights and liberties would not be easily violated. By establishing a federal
system, the Framers rejected the concentration of power and authority in the hands of a central government. Each phase of federalism is discussed in detail later in this chapter.
Contemporary Federalism as Intergovernmental Relations (IGR)
If the Framers were alive today, they might not recognize the federal system, because they
conceived of it as a formal division of power and authority between the states and the national
government. Today, federalism is thought of less in terms of formal divisions and more in
terms of working partnerships between the states and the national government. In fact, when
we talk about federalism today, we talk in terms of intergovernmental relations (IGR),
whereby the states and the national government must work together to achieve a common
public purpose.
The working relationship is not always easy
or smooth. The tension between state and
national sovereignty continues, although states
must work with the national government in
order to fulfill citizen needs. Unless it is part
of its enumerated constitutional powers found
in Article I, Section 8, the national government
should not direct state actions. The national
government lacks authority other than to use
the power of the purse to enforce compliance.
Consider the vignette that opened this chapter.
The federal government is obligated to enforce
immigration policy by patrolling the borders.
Grant-in-Aid
Despite the built-in tension, the national government has several tools at its disposal to
help ensure cooperation from the states. One
tool is grant-in-aid, or sums of money the
national government gives to the state or local
governments to do something. If the national
government gives the state of Colorado money
to repair highways, for instance, that money is
usually considered to be a grant-in-aid. Not all
grants-in-aid are the same. There are two basic
types: categorical grants and block grants.
Associated Press/Roger Alford
A categorical grant is money given to a state
by the federal government for a specific
purpose.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 59
3/24/16 1:40 PM
Understanding Federalism
Section 3.2
A categorical grant is money given to a state by the federal government for a specific purpose or function, such as to build or repair roads. Categorical grants allow no flexibility or
discretion. Through categorical grants, the federal government is able to wield influence over
both states and localities. By contrast, block grants offer states more flexibility than categorical grants do. Whereas the categorical grant is single purpose, the block grant is multipurpose. A block grant is actually a group of several categorical grants that are related to one
another. Within the block are several separate programs, and the recipient of the grant can
choose which programs to fund and can move money around from one program to another.
Preemption
The national government can seek state compliance through the courts. A court that issues a
judgment against a state has no real enforcement power, although states may comply with
judgments against them if only because they have been ruled against. At the same time, the
national government may utilize preemption, which is the federal government’s right to
prevent state and local governments from enforcing their own laws because those state and
local laws conflict with the Supremacy Clause. Either scenario is less likely today than it was
in the early republic. A tradition of respecting and abiding by judgments of courts has evolved
over time.
Use of Federal Marshals
© Bettmann/Corbis
In 1957, President Eisenhower used federalized
troops to force the Little Rock, Arkansas, schools to
comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v.
Board of Education. Here, the troops are moving protestors away from the high school.
The national government may,
though not frequently, use troops as a
last resort …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment