UNITARY, FEDERAL, AND CONFEDERAL POLITICAL SYSTEMS

All political systems may be evaluated according to their geographic distribution of power. A unitary system is one that concentrates all policymaking powers in one central geographic place; a confederal system spreads the power among many sub-units (such as states), and has a weak central government. A federal system divides the power between the central government and the sub-units. All political systems fall on a continuum from the most concentrated amount of power to the least. Unitary government s may be placed on the left side, according to the degree of concentration; confederal governments are placed to the right; and federal governments fall in between. 

THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERALISM

Federalism was carefully defined in the Constitution as a founding principle of the U.S. political system. The nature of federalism has been shaped through the years by debates between prominent statesmen, laws, and Supreme Court decisions.

 FEDERALISM AS PROVIDED IN THE CONSTITUTION

When the colonies declared their independence from Britain in 1776, they reacted against the British unitary system in which all political and economic power was concentrated in London. A major source of friction between the colonies and the mother country was the British attempt to reclaim powers previously granted to the colonial governments. During the American Revolution, the states reacted to Britain's unitary system by creating the Articles of Confederation that gave virtually all powers to the states. The framers at the Constitutional Convention tried to balance the perceived tyranny of the unitary system with the chaos created by the confederal system by outlining a hybrid federal system in the Constitution. 

Express Powers

The Constitution grants the national government certain express powers, chief of which are the war power, the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, and the power to tax and spend. 

The War Power

The national government is responsible for protecting the nation from external attacks and for declaring war when necessary. Today, defense includes not only maintaining a standing army, navy, and air force, but also the ability to mobilize industry and scientific knowledge to back the efforts of the military 

The Power to Regulate Interstate and Foreign Commerce

The national government has the responsibility to regulate commerce between the U.S. and foreign nations, but also trade between states. The commerce clause (Article One, Section 8, Clause 3) gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes." The government regulates a wide range of human activity, including agriculture, transportation, finance, product safety, labor relations, and the workplace. Few aspects of today's economy affect commerce in only one state, so most activities are subject to the national government's constitutional authority. 

The Power to Tax and Spend

Even when Congress lacks the constitutional power to legislate ( for example, education and agriculture), its power to appropriate money, provides Congress with a great deal of control. When Congress finances an undertaking, it determines how the money will be spent. Congress may threaten to withhold funds if a project does not meet federal guidelines. In recent years Congress has refused to finance any program in which benefits are deinied because of race, color, or national origin, and more recently, gender and physical handicap.

Congress frequently mandates that states follow federal regulations, such as providing social services or cleaning up air and water, before funding will be provided. Even more controversial are federal mandates that impose regulations without providing funds to carry out the order.

 Concurrent Powers

All powers not granted in the Constitution to the national government are reserved for the states. Each state, however, may have concurrent powers with the national government, unless they have been given exclusively to the national government, either by provision of the Constitution or by judicial interpretation. Examples are the concurrent powers of levying taxes and regulating commerce within each state. Even so, federalism limits state powers in that states cannot "unduly burden" their citizens with taxes, nor can they interfere with a function of the national government nor abridge the terms of a treaty of the U.S. government.

 THE "NECESSARY AND PROPER" DEBATE

From the beginning, the meaning of federalism has been open to debate. In the late 18th century, one view, known as loose construction, was championed by Alexander Hamilton. The national government created by the government represented "the supreme law of the land" (Article Six), and its powers should be broadly defined and liberally construed. The other view, articulated by Thomas Jefferson, was that the federal government was the product of an agreement among the states and that the main threat to personal liberty was likely to come from the national government. Jefferson's strict construction required that the powers of the national government should be narrowly construed and sharply limited. This famous clash in interpretations of the Constitution shaped the political culture of the United States for many years, well into the mid-twentieth century. 

The "Elastic Clause" 

The Founders realized that they could not make a comprehensive list of powers for the national or the state governments. They added to Article I the "elastic clause": Congress shall have the power "to make all laws which shall be necesary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Hamilton's arguments for national supremacy relied heavily on the elastic (or "necessary and proper") clause. Jefferson's states rights point of view rested partially on the tenth amendment:

"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." 

McCulloch v. Maryland

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, tipped the balance of the debate to the national supremacy point of view. Marshall advocated the national supremacy point of view in a series of decisions, including the influential 1819 case known as McCulloch v. Maryland.

The case arose when James McCulloch, the cashier of the Bank of the United States in Baltimore, refused to pay a tax levied on the bank by the state of Maryland. When he was arrested by state officials, McCulloch appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court's opinion set an important precedent that established national supremacy over states rights. The case questioned the right of the federal government to establish a bank, since no such right is enumerated in Article I. Marshall relied on the elastic clause in the majority opinion:

"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."

Marshall ruled the Maryland law that established the tax unconstitutional with his famous statement: "The power to tax is the power to destroy." The power to destroy a federal agency would give the state supremacy over the federal government, so the states may not tax a federal agency.

The issue continued to rage throughout the early 19th century, and eventually the states rights point of view was defined by Madison and Jefferson as nullificaiton, the right of a state to declare null and void a federal law that in the state's opinion, violated the Constitution. Before the Civil War, John C. Calhoun led the charge for southern states that claimed the right to declare null and void any attempts by the national government to ban slavery. The issue was settled with the northern victory in the Civil War that determined once and for all that the federal union is indissoluble and that states cannot declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

 THE "COMMERCE CLAUSE"

With the booming Industrial Revolution of the late 1800s, the debate over the balance of power between state and national government focused on the interpreation of the commerce clause. The commerce clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." At first, the Court tried to distinguish between interstate commerce, which Congress could regulate, and intrastate commerce, which only the states could control. Because most companies don't restrict themselves to one or the other, the Court had a great deal of trouble distinguishing between the two. If a company is canning vegetables, some of which will be shipped within the state, and some outside the state, should different regulations apply to canning the same product? Is a shipment destined for another state under state control as long as it travels to the border? At what point does it become interstate commerce?

Over the years this clause has been interpretted more and more broadly, so that today, the national government regulates a wide range of commercial activities, including transportation, agriculture, labor relations, finance, and manufacturing. Almost no type of commerce is controlled exclusively by the states, and the current Court interpretation of commerce laws is extremely complex.

The Commerce clause also has been used to sustain legislation outside of commercial matters. In 1964 the Supreme Court upheld the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbidding discrimination because of race in public accommodations because

"Congress's action in removing the disruptive effect which it found racial

discrimination has on interstate travel is not invalidated because Congress

was also legislating against what it considers to be moral wrongs."

Discrimination affects interstate commerce, so Congress constitutionally could leislate against discrimination. Again, many years later, Hamilton's loose interpretation of the Constitution insures that the principle of national supremacy prevails over that of states rights.

 THE POLITICS OF MODERN FEDERALISM

The structures of the federal system have not change much since the Constitution was written, but modern politics have changed the relationship between national and state governments, especially over the past 50 years. Today, with the growth of big government, a major aspect of federalism is the grant-in-aid system: the national government provides millions of dollars for federal grants to states. 

GRANTS-IN-AID

One of the national governments most important tools for influencing policy at the state and local levels is the federal grant. Congress authorizes grants, establishes rules for how grants may be used, and decides how much control the states have over the federal funds.

Federal grants fall into three general types:

• Categorical grants are appropriated by Congress for specific purposes - highway or airport building, welfare, or school lunches. These grants usually require the state to "match" (put up money) the federal grants, although the matching funds can vary widely. There are hundreds of categorical grant programs, but a few, including Medicaid and Aid to Families with Dependent Children, account for almost 85 percent of total spending for categorical grants. State and local officials complain that these grants are often too narrow and cannot be adapted easily to local needs.
• Block grants consolidate several categorical grants into a single "block" for prescribed broad activities, such as social services, health services, or public education. This type of grant was promoted by Ronald Reagan, and during the early 1980s, Congress consolidated a number of categorical grants into block grants. More recently, President Clinton has advocated that more consolidation occur, although Congress has been reluctant to do so. Block grants give Congress less control over how the money is used, and representative cannot take credit for grants to their particular districts. State governors generally have supported block grants, because they give states wide control of how and where the money is spent. City mayors have tended to oppose them because cities must rely on state governments to determine funding rules and amounts.
• Revenue Sharing was even more permissive than block grants. Under this program, states and localities are given federal funds, with no requirement for matching funds and the freedom to spend the money on almost anything they please. In the late 1980s federal deficits grew so large that revenue sharing was terminated. The national government claimed that it had "no revenue to share."

Today, even though block grants still exist, Congress is always tempted to add "strings" that set requirements for how federal grants are to be spent. As a result, block grants gradually become more categorical, a phenomenon known as "creeping categorization."

MANDATES

A recent federal control on the activities of state governments is a mandate, a rule that tells states what they must do in order to comply with federal guidelines. Often the mandates are tied to federal grants, but sometimes the mandates have nothing to do with federal aid.

Most mandates apply to civil rights and environmental protection. State programs may not discriminate against specific groups of people, no matter who pays for them. Today, antidiscrimination rules apply to race, sex, age, ethnicity, and physical and mental disabilities. States must comply with federal laws and standards regarding the environment, as well.

Mandates have been criticized strongly by state and local governments. From their point of view, it is easy enough for Congress to pass mandates when the states must foot the bills. For example, the 1986 Handicapped Children's Protection Act provided federal regulations meant to assure equal access and opportunity for disabled children. Federal guidelines included requirements for public schools to build access ramps and elevators, provide special buses and personnel, and widen hallways, all with no federal money to help schools comply. President Clinton has expressed sympathy for state and local complaints, and in 1997, Congress agreed to legislation that requires mandates to be tied to federal funds. How effective this legislation will be remains to be seen.

Examples of Federal Mandates for State and Local Governments   1983 - Social Secuirty Amendments   1984 - Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Highway Safety Amendments   1986 - Asbestos Emergency Response Act Handicapped Children's Protection Act Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments   1988 - Drug-Free Workplace Acts Ocean Dumping Ban Act   1990 - Clean Air Act Amendments Americans with Disabilities Act

THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF FEDERALISM

Few Americans believe that the federalist system should be abandoned, but the nature of federalism is still a controversy today, and Americans still disagree about the balance of power between national and state governments.

ADVANTAGES 1. Mobilization of political activity The various levels of government provide many alternatives for a citizen to be heard regarding a concern. If a local official won't listen, a citizen may appeal to someone on the state or national level. 2. Interest groups cannot easily take over the government. Powerful interest groups cannot force their will upon less powerful groups because in order to control, they would have to take over not only the national government , but state and local governments as well. Small groups of people have a chance to be heard and influence legislation. 3. Diviersity of policies among states encourages experimentation and creativty. 50 different state governemnts tackle similar issues, and a good solution in one state can be modeled in another. For example, if a state finds a good way to finance public education, other states can mimick the plan, altering for special needs. On the other hand, if a state tries something that fails, at least it affects only one state, not all. 4. Diverse policies among states are good because uniform laws don't make sense in many areas. For example, speed limits on highways should be under state and local control, as should the minimum age for obtaining a driving license. Crowded New Jersey should not have the same speed limits as does wide-open Montana. Young people in farm states should be allowed to drive at early ages in order to help support the farm.

DISADVANTAGES 1. Confusion of political activity The various levels of government can be confusing to a citizen, so that he or she does not know which official to contact. 2. Small but motivated interest groups can block the will of the majority for extended periods of time. Sometimes small groups of people can impose their will for extended periods of time on the majority. For example, a relatively small group of southern senators blocked civil rights legislation for many years after most citizens favored such legislation. 3. Diversity of policies among states creates inequality between citizens of different states. Because states provide different levels of support, citizens in some states have more advantages than those in other states. For example, welfare benefits vary widely among the states, as do funding levels for public education. 4. Diverse policies among states even for speed limits and driving ages creates confusion and inequality. Although speed limits obviously need to vary, arbitrary differences in state laws are confusing and outdated in this era of interstate highways. Differences in driving ages are not fair to young people in states with higher age requirements.

An individual's attitude about federalism depends partly on how much he or she values equality vs. freedom. Uniform laws passed by a unitary government tend to emphasize equal treatment of citizens. Diverse laws logically are supported by individuals who find particular merit in allowing more individual freedom.

THE FUTURE OF FEDERALISM

Even though politics and public policy are more nationalized today than ever before, the federalist system is still an essential part of American government. States still sponsor major programs to fund education, help distressed cities, and provide welfare. Local governments still have wide controls over a myriad of services and regulations. The federalist sytem is rooted in the Constitution, and even though it has changed dramatically in this century, there is no doubt that governmental powers will continue to be shared among national, state, and local levels.