Inkwell Institute
Professor’s Classroom
Subject: Political Theory/American History/Government
You now have a definition of federalism and you have the types and the whys….now do you know what powers the states have under the federalism cloak?
State Government Powers
As the Tenth Amendment clearly states, those powers not delegated to the national government are reserved to the states. However, the Constitution is almost silent on what these powers might be. The only significant state power specifically mentioned by the Constitution is the ability of the states to call for a constitutional convention and to ratify (or reject) proposed amendments to the Constitution.
Many constitutional scholars have assumed that those powers not mentioned at all in the Constitution were intended to be left to the states. The most significant policy area over which state and local governments have exercised almost complete control has been public education. While the national government has provided hundreds of billions of dollars to help pay for the provision of elementary, secondary and higher education, it has, for the most part, left the details of education policy to the states. Additionally, state and local governments are the exclusive providers (or regulators) of public utilities and services such as water, sewage systems, garbage removal and the maintenance of streets. Most of the other powers traditionally exercised by the states are not exclusively state powers, but rather powers that are shared by both national and state governments (see below).
Limits on State Power
The Constitution includes several prohibitions on state behavior. Most notably, states cannot:
- Make treaties with foreign governments
- Print or coin their own money
- Overrule civil judgments (such as divorce settlements) of courts in other states
- Treat nonresidents differently from residents (except for charging nonresidents more than residents for tuition to attend state colleges and universities)
- Refuse extradition requests from other states (if someone is charged with a crime in another state, a state must surrender the suspect to the state where the crime was committed)
- Wage war against other states or nations
Now the powers that the state governments have is known…but there is more….in 1999 Pres. Bill Clinton issued Executive Order #13132 and defined Federalism thusly:
Fundamental Federalism Principles. In formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, agencies shall be guided by the following fundamental federalism principles: (a) Federalism is rooted in the belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are most appropriately addressed by the level of government closest to the people.
(b) The people of the States created the national government and delegated to it enumerated governmental powers. All other sovereign powers, save those expressly prohibited the States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States or to the people.
(c) The constitutional relationship among sovereign governments, State and national, is inherent in the very structure of the Constitution and is formalized in and protected by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
(d) The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives.
(e) The Framers recognized that the States possess unique authorities, qualities, and abilities to meet the needs of the people and should function as laboratories of democracy.
(f) The nature of our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. In the search for enlightened public policy, individual States and communities are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues. One-size-fits-all approaches to public policy problems can inhibit the creation of effective solutions to those problems.
(g) Acts of the national government–whether legislative, executive, or judicial in nature–that exceed the enumerated powers of that government under the Constitution violate the principle of federalism established by the Framers.
(h) Policies of the national government should recognize the responsibility of–and should encourage opportunities for–individuals, families, neighborhoods, local governments, and private associations to achieve their personal, social, and economic objectives through cooperative effort.
(i) The national government should be deferential to the States when taking action that affects the policymaking discretion of the States and should act only with the greatest caution where State or local governments have identified uncertainties regarding the constitutional or statutory authority of the national government.
The Clinton admin wanted to redefine federalism….and they were very successful and his order can be blamed for a lot of the problems that states are feeling in their financial situations.
The executive order is a way around the pesky congressional process…….
An excellent and informative post. Whilst I bow to your far superior knowledge of American politics and almost totally with regard to the constitution (the UK doesn’t even have one), there are a couple of probably only vaguely “on topic” personal points I’d like to make…
1) There have in my opinion only been two charismatic Presidents in the US in my lifetime and charisma is in my view ESSENTIAL if the President is ever going to carry the real and effective authority with the people as a whole that is so important for advancement. Whilst I don’t entirely applaud their politics, those two Presidents are Bill Clinton and John F Kennedy.
2) The Republicans have done their very best to minimize the huge benefits the US COULD have gained from that “across the board” Presidential popularity and acceptance. If the Republicans hadn’t spent ALL their energies attempting to do to Clinton EXACTLY what they are trying to repeat with Obama, America and the world might now be a much better place.
In the case of Clinton specifically (despite the fact that he was very clearly the choice of the vast majority of the people!), they (the Repubs) used blocking and diversionary tactics to stop legigislation that plainly followed the will of the people. Just as with Obama and the birth certificate thing, these utter IDIOTS spend vast numbers of government hours and HUGE sums of public money desperately chasing Clinton over the intern he had a bit of “rumpy-pumpy” with. What did THAT have to do with running the most powerful nation on the planet? All that time and money was wasted on a personal matter that was between Clinton and his wife and about which a huge majority of the American public didn’t give a flying fuck!
In fact, in the end, the Republicans did more to increase Bill Clinton’s public popularity than the whole Democratic PR machine could EVER have managed and (if memory serves me correctly regarding the time-line) virtually guaranteed Clinton a further term.
Do these goddam stupid bloody idiots NEVER learn ANYTHING? Do they STILL not understand that a HUGE majority of ordinary people just don’t give a shit about all the junk they waste so much of America’s time and money on?
Quin…thanx for the “atta boy”…I appreciate it…..to answer your question…NO they do not ever learn…..they are really stupid in today’s landscape where everything they say or do is on Facebook…….While I will agree with you about the popularity of Clinton….but IMO he did more to collapse the markets than Bush did…but that is for another day….
I guess. You’d know more about that than me. Then again Maggie Thatcher (pretty right wing) wound up with a failing economy, but I’m still convinced that her opponents caused much if not all of those problems in order to thwart her.
That’s the really sad thing about these total assholes – they’d scupper the country for everyone rather than see some kind of bright idea they didn’t think of succeed.
I admit I don’t know a great deal about the Clinton era on a detailed level, but in my estimation (from the outside) it appeared to me that less than half of what he wanted to do ever got through and that is indeed what these people do (on both sides) – they use every trick in the book to delay and disrupt any kind of smooth government, so no one ever knows how things WOULD have worked out if any of these parties were actually able to truly run the country.
All I know is that Bush supported and favoured the very worst elements of the financial system (in fact, to me, he’s one of them, but then he’s so stupid that they ran rings around him) and, indeed, many of them could never have behaved that illegally without his support.
Clinton, on the other hand (just like the good Democrat he is), thought he could legislate and regulate the problem – at which, of course, he failed miserably.
You are right…Clinton got about half his ideas through Congress and that was a good score compared to some of the other presidents…..just like now…Obama is NOT proposing anything that would actually hurt or stifle Wall Street……politicians are there for their own benefit….the people only play intoi it as long as they can be manipulated……I would imagine it is very similar to the UK……I have read a bunch in the past about the Declaration of Independence and came across the English Declaration of Rights:
* Freedom from royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.
* Freedom from taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes.
* Freedom to petition the monarch.
* Freedom from the standing army during a time of peace. The agreement of parliament became necessary before the army could be moved against the populace when not at war.
* Freedom for Protestants to have arms for their own defence, as suitable to their class and as allowed by law.
* Freedom to elect members of parliament without interference from the sovereign.
* Freedom of speech and debates; or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
Some sound really familiar……