Download Constitional Underpinnings

AP Government &
Politics
Unit 1
Federalism
 System of government where political authority
divided between national (federal) government,
and its political subdivisions.
 In this system, national and state govt’s each have
defined powers, with some being share by both
and some being denied both.
Types of Governments
5. Dictatorship: rule by one person or
a group of people. Very few
1. Democracy: literally means "rule
dictators admit they are dictators;
by the people.” The people
almost always claim to be leaders of
govern.
democracies. Dictator may be 1
2. Republic: Literal democracy is
person, such as Castro in Cuba or a
impossible in political system
group of people, such as the
containing more than a few
Communist Party in China.
people. All "democracies" are
6. Democratic Republic: Usually, a
really republics. In a republic,
"democratic republic" is not
people elect representatives to
democratic and is not a republic.
make and enforce laws.
Usually a dictatorship. Communist
3. Monarchy: rule by a king/queen.
dictatorships have been especially
Sometimes king called an
prone to use this term. For example,
"emperor," especially if there is a
the official name of North Vietnam
large empire, such as China
was "The Democratic Republic of
before 1911. No large
Vietnam." China uses a variant, "The
monarchies today. UK is really a
People's Republic of China."
republic because queen has
virtually no political power.
4. Aristocracy: rule by wealthy,
educated people. Many
monarchies have really been
ruled by aristocrats.
Three Ways Power is Shared Between
National Government and States/SubUnits
 Unitary
 One strong national government
 Example: Great Britain
 Most of world uses this type
 Confederal
 Strong states or regions with weak national government
 Example: Articles of Confederation, the Confederacy
 Federal*
 Strong central government that shares power with states
or regions

Example: US
Federalism
 Final authority divided between sub-units and a
center.
 Refers to apportioning of power between
federal government and states.
 In federal system, national government holds
significant power, but smaller political
subdivisions also hold significant power. EX: US,
Canada, Australia, and Brazil
True or False??
 Most governments in the world have both state and
national governments, as in the U.S..
True or False??
 The powers of the state and national governments
were clearly established in the Constitution.
True or False??
 Under federalism, states surrender their power to the
national government.
True or False??
 The Framers themselves had a hard time agreeing on
what was meant by federalism.
True or False??
 The nature of federalism has remained consistent
throughout U.S. History.
True or False??
 The complexity of federalism tends to discourage
citizen participation in government.
Discuss
 What reasons exist for the states to continue exercising
independent power?
Discuss
 The speed limits vary across the nation’s roads and
highways.
 Could the national government legally intervene to
rectify these conflicting state laws ?
 Should it?
Discuss
 Gay marriage is allowed in 13 states (Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, New
York, Maryland, Maine, Washington, Delaware,
California, Rhode Island, Minnesota) and Washington,
D.C.
 The Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon also grants same-sex
marriage.
 Could the national government legally intervene to rectify
the conflicting state laws ?
 Should it?
Discuss
 Certain areas in Nevada permit prostitution.
 Could the national government legally intervene to
forbid such practices?
 Should it?
Discuss
 Alaska and Colorado have held referendums
concerning the private possession of small amounts of
marijuana.
 Could the national government legally intervene to
forbid such practices?
 Should it?
Discuss
 California has laws allowing for the distribution and
use concerning the medical marijuana.
 Could the national government legally intervene to
forbid such practices?
 Should it?
Discuss
 Georgia, Texas, and other states have laws that allow
the death penalty. Massachusetts and others have
laws forbidding it.
 Could the national government legally intervene to
rectify these conflicting state laws ?
 Should it?
Federalism Terms to Know
Dual Federalism
Cooperative Federalism
AKA Creative Federalism
New Federalism
Models of Federal Governments
Dual Federalism
Cooperative Federalism
Dual Federalism
Dual Federalism
 Fed. And state governments co-equals
 Constitution interpreted very narrowly.
 Fed. limited to only powers explicitly listed
 Ex: 10th Amendment, Supremacy Clause, Necessary
and Proper Clause, and Commerce Clause.
AKA…
“Layer Cake Federalism"
Dual Federalism
Examples of Dual Federalism
 Laissez faire or hands off business
 Gilded Age
 Dred Scott decision
 States can decide about slave laws
 Jim Crow laws
 States can decide about
segregation/integration
 Plessey
v Ferguson
Dual Federalism
Switch from Dual to Cooperative
Federalism
 Steady from New Deal to late 20th century.
 Dual federalism not completely dead, but
branches of government operate under
cooperative federalism.
Cooperative Federalism
 Fed. gov supreme over states
 Broad interpretation exemplified by Necessary
and Proper Clause aka Elastic Clause.
AKA…
“Marble Cake Federalism"
Examples of
Cooperative Federalism
 New Deal
 Government programs to end Great Depression
 Great Society
 Government programs to end discrimination AND
to provide for those less fortunate
 NCLB and Race to the Top
 Federal government regulation and grants
concerning K-12 education
Cooperative Federalism & Grants
 Explosion of grants reached beyond states
 Established intergovernmental links at all levels,
often bypassing states entirely.
 AKA “picket fence federalism"
 AKA Creative Federalism
 Started with Morrill Land Grant of 1862
 Fed. gave each state 30,000 acres of public land for
each representative in Congress
 $$$ from sale of lands establish/support agricultural
and mechanical arts colleges (UGA, Texas A & M,
Michigan State…)
New Federalism
 Devolutionary objective: attempt to limit
powers of fed. gov to impose its policies on
states
 Idea began starting with Nixon and
Reagan
 Included decentralization of national
programs to regions
 Included efforts to reduce national control
over grants-in-aid programs
 Revise character of federal involvement in
general welfare spending.
Federal Mandates (the stick)
 Direct state/local governments to comply
with rules/regulations
 Federal Clean Air Act
 Sometimes mandates may not make up full
costs of program.
 Unfunded Mandate
 Endangered Species Act (1973)
 NO CHOICE but to follow whether or
not money is supplied by feds
Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
 Prevented Congress from passing costly
federal programs along to states with at
least debate on how to fund them
 Devolution Origin—designed to make it
more difficult for fed. government to
make state/local governments pay for
programs and projects that it refuses to
pay for itself.
 Proven to be case of promises
unfulfilled
Federal Grants (the carrot)
 Fed. government transfers payments/shares
revenues with lower levels of government via
federal grants.
 It’s all about the money!!!!
 Who has it (the
national government)
 Who wants it (the states)
 And who gets it (the states who jump through the right
hoops)
 Federal governments use power to enforce
national rules/standards by opening and closing
its “purse strings” for states
Revenue Sharing
 Transfer of tax revenue to states
 Congress gave an annual amount of federal tax
revenue to states and their cities, counties and
townships.
 Revenue sharing extremely popular w/state
officials, but lost fed. support during Reagan
Administration.
 1987: revenue sharing replaced with block
grants in smaller amounts to reduce federal
deficit
2 Types of Grants-in Aid
 Block grants
Grants provided to states from fed.
government with few strings attached
 Ex: a grant for transportation but state can
decide which roads will be built/where they
will be located
 Categorical grants
 Grants provided to states from fed.
government with many strings attached
 Ex: a grant for roads but fed. government
decides where road will go/which road can
be widened

Welfare Act of 1996
 AKA Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act
 Signed August 22, 1996 (Clinton)
 Required work in exchange for time-limited
assistance.
 Law contained:
 strong work requirements
 performance bonus to reward states for moving
welfare recipients into jobs
 state maintenance of effort requirements
 comprehensive child support enforcement
 supports for families moving from welfare to
work (increased funding for child care and
guaranteed medical coverage)
Important Supreme Court Cases
Concerning Federalism
 South Dakota v Dole
 U.S. v Lopez
 Printz v U.S.
 District of Columbia v. Heller
 MacDonald v Chicago
 Boumediene v. Bush
 Bush v Gore
South Dakota vs. Dole (1987)
 Fed. government required states to
raise drinking age to 21 in order to
receive highway funds
 SD claimed law unconstitutional
because 21st amendment gave power
to states for regulating alcoholic
beverages.
 State filed suit against Secretary of
Transportation Elizabeth Dole
 Can Congress withhold federal funding
in order to force a state to pass
legislation it deems useful?
Decision and Importance
Decision: “Yes!”
Why important? Provision designed
to serve general welfare
“Non-requirement” aspect was
valid exercise of Congress' spending
power
United States vs. Lopez (1995)
 1st modern Supreme Court case to set limits to
Congress's lawmaking power.
 Alfonso Lopez, Jr. carried handgun and bullets into his
high school.
 Charged with violating Section 922(q) of Gun-Free School
Zones Act of 1990.
 Government believed that possession of firearm at
school falls under jurisdiction of Commerce Clause.
Decision and Importance
 Court said, “NO!” to Commerce Clause in Lopez
 Fed. government overstretched its boundaries
 Forced states to create gun laws themselves.
 Why important? Interstate commerce, gun-free school
zones cannot be federally mandated (states rights)
 Was this a change in the direction of Court?
Printz vs. United States (1997)
 Reagan’s press secretary, James Brady seriously
injured during assassination attempt
 Lobbied for stricter gun controls and background
checks – passed, known as “Brady Bill”
 Printz (a sheriff) challenged Brady Bill charging that it
violated 10th Amendment
 Did the federal mandated law take it too far??
Importance
 Court said “YES!’
 Ruled in favor of Printz
 Congress may not require States to administer
federal regulatory program and violated 10th
Amendment to Constitution
 Decision overturned requirements for local
enforcement of background checks
 Why important? States no longer subordinates
in all power disputes involving unfunded
mandates
Amendment II
 Well regulated militia, being necessary to security of a
free state, right of people to keep and bear arms, shall
not be infringed.
 What exactly does that mean???
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
 Regarding meaning of II Amendment and relation
to gun control laws.
 After DC passed legislation barring registration of
handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols, and
mandating all legal firearms be kept unloaded
and disassembled or trigger locked, group of
private gun-owners brought suit claiming laws
violated 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
 Do local government have right to impose such
strict laws concerning guns?
 **
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
 Decision: No!
 In a 5-4 decision, Court held that 2nd Amendment
protects individual right to possess a firearm
unconnected with service in militia, and to use that
firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as selfdefense at home.
McDonald v. Chicago, 2010
 Facts of the case
 Several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak
Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after
Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of
Columbia v. Heller.
 Here, plaintiffs argued that 2nd Amendment should
also apply to states.
 **
McDonald v. Chicago, 2010
 Ruling and Importance (5-4)
 Supreme Court ruled that 14th Amendment makes 2nd
Amendment right to keep and bear arms for purpose of
self-defense applicable to states
 Court reasoned rights that are "fundamental to Nation's
scheme of ordered liberty" or that are "deeply rooted in
Nation's history and tradition" are appropriately applied
to states through 14th Amendment.
Habeas Corpus “You have the Body”
 Writ of habeas corpus: judicial
mandate to prison official ordering
inmate be brought to court to
determine if imprisonment is lawful
 Prisoners often seek release by
filing petition for writ of habeas
corpus.
 Filed with court by person who
objects to own or another's detention
or imprisonment.
 Petition must show that court
ordering detention/imprisonment
made legal/factual error.
Boumediene v. Bush (2008):
 Facts of the Case:
 2002: Lakhdar Boumediene and 5 other
Algerian natives seized by Bosnian police
when U.S. intelligence officers suspected
involvement in plot to attack U.S.
embassy there. U.S. gov. classified men as
enemy combatants in war on terror and
detained them at Guantanamo Bay Naval
Base (GITMO), located on land U.S.
leases from Cuba.
 **
Boumediene v. Bush (2008):
 Questions of Law
1. Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted
to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions
filed by foreign citizens detained at U.S. Naval Base at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
2. If so, is Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of
Suspension Clause of Constitution?
3. Are detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to protection of 5th
Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due
process of law and of Geneva Conventions?
4. Can detainees challenge adequacy of judicial review
provisions of Military Commissions Act?
Importance
 No and Yes to questions (5-4 split decision)
 Court ruled in favor of detainees in each
question.
 Procedures laid out in Detainee Treatment Act not
adequate substitutes for habeas writ.
 Detainees not barred from seeking habeas or
invoking Suspension Clause because had been
designated as enemy combatants/held at
Guantanamo Bay.
Bush v. Gore (2000)
 Facts of the Case:
 FL Supreme Court ordered Circuit
Court manual recount of 9000
contested ballots from Miami-Dade
County.
 Recount all "under-votes" (ballots
which did not indicate a vote for
president)
 Gov. George Bush and Richard
Cheney sought emergency petition
to reverse FL Supreme Court's
decision.
Bush v. Gore (2000)
 Questions of Law:
1. Did FL Supreme Court violate Article
II Section 1 Clause 2 of Constitution
by making new election law?
2.Do standardless manual recounts
violate Equal Protection and Due
Process Clauses of Constitution?
Importance
In 5-4 decision Supreme Court ruled for.
Bush and Cheney
1. Yes, FL Supreme Ct. acted incorrectly
Equal Protection clause guarantees ballots
can’t be devalued by "later arbitrary and
disparate treatment”
2. Yes, manual recounts were
unconstitutional
Recount fair in theory, unfair in practice.
Read Your Chapters!!
(Many) More Supreme Court
cases to come…

