The Current State of Federalism in the 21st Century

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
From the history of American Federalism
The policy of “new federalism”
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The confrontation of trends of centralization and decentralization in the context of the rigid constitutional distribution of competencies of the union and American Federation – continued to be unabated in the U.S. history. This struggle was primarily around the issue of relationships, distribution of competencies between federal bodies and individual states. The changes that have occurred in this area, reflected primarily in the decisions of the Supreme Court, fixed them to the needs of the time, political expediency, and placement of the socio-political forces in the country.

From the history of American Federalism

The outcome of the civil war of the 60-is of the XIX century was the doctrine of eternal union, recognizing the U.S. as a single state, created by the will of the entire American people, excluding the right of any state in the Art Nouveau and the refusal to recognize the actions of the Federal Congress as unconstitutional.

The dispute between the federation and its players became was focused on the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution on the right of the federal Congress to regulate interstate commerce. A doctrine of “double-sided federalism”, which comes from the fact that the scope of national government and state should be separated, but trade between the states should be governed in accordance with the Constitution of the Federal Congress, and only within the states. The broad interpretation of this doctrine has made it possible to adjust the center of almost all questions relating to the business, one way or another, going beyond the state. (Dye, 2008)

The trend of centralization of “vertical”, transferring authority from the states to the center of the most vividly manifested in the “New Deal” by Roosevelt, in a concentration of funds to the crisis, the implementation of federal economic and social programs, significantly greater power of President, the growth of numerous federal regulatory departments.

It persisted after the 30-is when the Supreme Court did not ascertain the views of federal and state, but justified their policy of cooperation for the solution of common socio-economic challenges. This has allowed federal authorities to regulate many areas of economic activity in the country. As a result not only agriculture but also industry had the responsibility of the federal authorities, which was supported by the Supreme Court decision in 1942 approving the general rule that Congress may take law, the constitutionality of which can not be questioned, if it relates to the regulation of almost any type of economic activity in any region of the country. (Morgan, 2008)

Strengthening of the control of the federation of the states and going through the growth of their financial dependence on the center. If, before the XX-th century federal grants to states, local governments were small, then the scale began to increase sharply. Since 1960 federal aid to states doubled every five years.

In 1980 it reached 28% of expenditure in the states. The enormous funds were for the implementation of 400 federal programs, among which the most important is the social assistance program for families with low income, unemployed, mothers with many children and families with disabled children in low-cost housing, health care, etc. Then on the first plan there was introduced general federal program to combat crime, environmental protection, etc. The fact that the since 60-is already half of all federal grants were spent on these goals, was due not only to radically change the priorities of federal policy, but also with the formation of new procedures for issuing grants. If the 60-is they were issued, upon request, States and with their participation, then the federal government has become less based on the requirements of state and more on what is considered the scope of national interests. In pursuing these interests, the federal government might even head to direct state grants available to individual cities or regions. (Dye, 2008)

Politics of excessive centralization could not hit the obstacles on the part of states. Spread the practice of the resolutions of the local legislature to “invade the Federation in the sphere of legal competence of states.” Influenced by the growth of anti-war sentiment (against the Vietnam War) have been taken laws, diverging from the official political line of Washington. In Massachusetts, for example, in 1970 a law was passed, which exempts citizens of the state from liability for failure to participate in the war on the ground that the decision to start was not accepted by Congress. Under the banner of “state sovereignty” were reactionary and regional forces, opponents of federal social programs.

Unbearable burden of subsidies forced the national government to seek the ways to ease varied forms of subsidies. They came in the form of release from state taxes, the combined grants, the amount of which depended on the size of the monetary participation in the federal programs of the state or local authorities, etc. But while the federal government has not ceased to impose new restrictions on the use of formal local grant funds.

The attempts of R. Nixon in 1979 in accordance with the policy of “new federalism” with more authority in the creation, management and funding of programs not yielded the expected results. A strong offensive against the excessive centralization was led by Republican Administration headed by R. Reagan, acting under the slogan “the search for a viable partnership, the return of state functions they may perform better.” (Morgan, 2008)

R. Reagan’s new plan to improve intergovernmental relations has been incorporated into the overall economic recovery strategy and included the following objectives: a) Reducing the impact of federal institutions on local business through increased confidence in local authorities, b) the replacement of the target of federal subsidies “block” allocated to a number of programs of states, c) gradual transfer of state responsibility for funding many programs, together with the transfer of certain financial funds, tax revenues with a corresponding reduction of the federal budget to finance social programs.

The policy of “new federalism”

In implementing the policy of “new federalism” R. Reagan canceled a number of programs, such as the Corps for youth employment and the creation of public jobs, the Commission on regional development and so on, leaving but grants to urban development, to build a municipal apartment house, etc. The federal courts have helped in this time of development of uniform standards and requirements for states wishing to receive state subsidies. (Dye, 2008)

The policy of “new federalism” has not changed the Center and states fundamentally. And now the federal government is the main actor in the implementation of social programs. Moreover, it is because of the changed conditions has become a series of activities, previously it was not peculiar, for example the fight against crime (which increasingly is not only inter-regional, and international character), the development of general education system etc. But this policy has contributed to greater understanding, greater participation of local authorities in solving national social problems in the implementation of social programs.

Conclusion

American federalism, having passed through all the difficulties and disasters in the search for effective interaction, legitimate the withdrawal of naturally occurring strain between the government bodies at all levels, now appears in the form of “cooperative federalism”, emanating from the pragmatic principles of “utility and benefit to the country, excluding the irreconcilable situation in the struggle for power.

References

Dye Thomas R. , MacManus Susan A. (2008). Politics In States And Communities. Prentice Hall

Morgan Iwan W. , Davies Philip J. (2008). The Federal Nation: Perspectives on American Federalism. Palgrave Macmillan

Click Here To Order Now!

The Current State of Federalism in the 21st Century

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)