Ap Gov. Unit 1 Chapter 2

Revenue sharing

A government unit's apportioning of part of its tax income to other units of government. For example, provinces or states may share revenue with local governments, or national governments may share revenue with provinces or states. Laws determine the formulas by which revenue is shared; the units that receive the money are free from most controls by the granting unit, and the receiving units may or may not be required to match the amounts received. Forms of revenue sharing have been used in several countries including Canada, India, and Switzerland. In the unique revenue-sharing program in the United States during 1972-86, money collected in federal taxes was given to state and local governments. The federal government imposed few restrictions on how revenue-sharing money could be used, for one of the principles underlying the program was that local elected officials were supposedly more effective at determining local needs. Communities held public hearings on how the money would be spent; there could be no discrimination in its use; and public audits were also required. As a result, small towns and counties, as well as large cities, received direct federal aid. Economist Walter Heller is credited with originating the revenue-sharing program, which U.S. President Richard M. Nixon signed into law in October 1972. During the 14 years of the program's operation administrative costs were extremely low, and a total of $85 billion reached America's communities.

Federalism

A system of government where the national government and individual state governments work together so the people are both represented by population and equality

Cooperative federalism

A term that describes the intertwined relations among the national, state, and local governments that began during the New Deal period. States began to take a secondary, albeit important, cooperative role in the scheme of governance, as did many cities. The federal government either encourages or requires that states and localities address safety, crime, education, and civil rights. Congress achieves this by directing federal funds to states that quality for aid. See also fiscal federalism and marble cake federalism.

Federal income tax

After the Civil War, the Supreme Court often stepped in to limit state powers in favor of a stronger national government. The Court also recognized the need for national involvement in projects such as railroad construction, canal building, and the development of new technology, such as the telegraph. And beginning in the 1880s, the Court allowed Congress to regulate many aspects of economic relationships, such as outlawing monopolies, a type of regulation formerly considered to exist exclusively in the realm of the states. By the 1890s, passage of laws such as the Interstate Commerce Act and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act allowed Congress to establish itself as the supreme player in a growing national economy. This role was enhanced by the ratification of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments during the early twentieth century. The Sixteenth Amendment gave Congress the power to levy and collect taxes on incomes without apportioning them among the states. The revenues taken in by the federal government through taxation of personal income "removed a major constraint on the federal government by giving it access to almost unlimited revenues." The Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, similarly enhanced the power of the national government at the expense of the states. This amendment terminated the state legislatures' election of senators and placed their election in the hands of the people. With senators no longer directly accountable to the state legislatures, states lost their principal protectors in Congress.

Delegated powers

Although the Constitution does not list all the specific powers reserved to the states, it does assign, or delegate, several powers to the states. These powers provide the states with a distinct voice in the composition and priorities of the national government. Members of congress are elected by voters in their home states (U.S. senators) or their home districts (representatives in the U.S. House). Therefore, members of Congress are accountable to the voters in the state that elected them. State governments also have the authority to redraw the boundaries of the U.S. House districts within the state after each decennial census. In addition, each state government determines the procedure by which the state's Electoral College electors will be selected to participate in the state's vote for the president and vice president. Overall, state voters will carefully consider their concerns when creating national policy.

Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)

Americans with disabilities have lobbied hard for anti-discrimination legislation as well as equal protection under the Constitution. In the aftermath of World War II, many veterans returned to a nation unequipped to handle their disabilities. The Korean and Vietnam Wars made the problems of disabled veterans all the more clear. These veterans saw the successes of other minorities and began to lobby for greater protection against discrimination. In 1990, in coalition with other disabled people, veterans finally convinced Congress to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The statute defines a disabled person as someone with a physical or mental impairment that limits one or more "life activities," or who has a record of such impairment. It thus extends the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to all citizens with physical or mental disabilities. It guarantees access to public facilities, employment, and communication services. Furthermore, it requires employers to acquire or modify work equipment, adjust work schedules, and make existing facilities accessible to those with disabilities. For example, people in wheelchairs must have ready access to buildings, and deaf employees must have telecommunication devices made available to them. The largest national nonprofit organization lobbying for expanded civil rights for the disabled is the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD). Acting on behalf of more than 56 million Americans who suffer from some form of disability, it works in coalition with other disability organizations to make certain that the ASDA is implemented fully.

Full faith and credit clause

Because of the ease of traveling between states as well as relocating from state to state, an important component of horizontal federalism stems from the full faith and credit clause of Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution. The full faith and credit clause asserts that each state must recognize as legally binding (that is, valid and enforceable) the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. For example, in March 2016, the Supreme Court cited the full faith and credit clause when it ruled that states must honor adoptions by same-sex parents who move across state lines.

10th Amendment

Because states held all the power at the time the Constitution was written, the Framers felt no need, as they did for the new national government, to list and restate all of the powers of the states, although some are specified throughout the Constitution. Article I of the U.S. Constitution notes that each state is entitled to two senators, and it leaves to the states the times, places, and manner of national elections. Thus, the states may enact their own restrictions on who can and cannot vote so long as those restrictions are constitutional. Article II requires that each state appoint electors to vote for president. And Article IV guarantees each state a "Republican Form of Government," meaning one that represents the citizens of the state. Not until the Tenth Amendment, the final part of the Bill of Rights, were the states' powers described in greater detail: "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." These powers, often called the states' reserved powers, include the ability to legislate for the public health, safety, and morals of their citizens. Today, the states' rights to legislate under their reserved powers provide the rationale for laws passed regarding access to bathrooms for transgendered persons and restrictions on abortion providers. Reserved powers also form the basis for state criminal laws, including those concerning the death penalty. As long as the U.S. Supreme Court continues to find the death penalty not in violation of the U.S. Constitution, the states may impose it, whether by lethal injection, gas chamber, electric chair, hanging, or firing squad.

Devolution

By the time of Lyndon Johnson's presidency (1963-1969), a new kind of federalism was developing. In this new form of federalism, the national government imposed its own policy preferences on state and local governments. Specifically, in centralized federalism, directives in national legislation, including grant-in-aid programs with ever-increasing conditions or strings attached to the money, force state and local governments to implement a particular national policy. Therefore, in centralized federalism, the national government dominates intergovernmental relations, imposing its policy preferences on state and local governments. Presidents since Richard Nixon (1969-1974) have fought against this centralizing tendency by proposing to return policy responsibilities (policy making, policy financing, and policy implementation) to state and local governments. Presidents Nixon and Ronal Reagan (1981-1989) gave the name new federalism to these efforts, and today we use the term devolution to refer to the return of power to state and local governments. Today, Republicans and Democrats (including presidents, members of Congress, and state and local lawmakers) broadly support devolution, but they debate which elements of the policy should be devolved: policy statements, policy financing, and/or policy implementation. For example, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind (2002) education law, which expanded the national government's role in education. His successor, President Obama, signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) which returned elements of education policy to the states.

Strings

Categorical grants come with strings attached, rules and regulations with which the recipient government must comply. One typical string is a matching funds requirement, which obligates the government receiving the grant to spend some of its own money to match a specified percentage of the grant money provided. Matching funds requirements allow the national government to influence the budget decisions of state and local governments by forcing them to spend some of their own money on a national priority, which may or may not be a state priority, in order to receive national funding. Medicaid, a health insurance program the national government created for low-income citizens, is jointly funded by federal and state money due to a matching funds requirement. Put into action primarily by state and local governments, this is one example of a national categorical formula grant program with strings attached. Since the 1960s, the national government has also offered categorical project grants. Like the categorical formula grant, a categorical project grant covers a narrow purpose (program area), but unlike the formula grant, a project grant does not include a formula specifying how much money a recipient will receive. Instead, state and local governments interested in receiving such a grant must compete for it by writing proposals detailing what programs they wish to implement and what level of funding they need. Categorical project grants have become common in national education policy. For example, in 2014, President Obama proposed spending $5 billion on the RESPECT categorical competitive grant program. State governments competed for this grant money to pursue reforms in all aspects of the teaching profession—from teacher preparation to teacher development, evaluation, and compensation. A categorical project grant has strings attached to it and typically offers less funding than a categorical formula grant.

Whiskey Rebellion

George Washington set an important precedent for future presidents by establishing the primacy of the national government. In 1794, Washington used the militia of four states to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, an uprising of 3,000 western Pennsylvania farmers opposed to a federal excise tax on liquor. To emphasize the significance of the action, Washington, along with Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, led 15,000 troops into battle himself. Washington's action helped establish the idea of federal supremacy and the authority of the executive branch to collect taxes levied by Congress.

New Federalism

In 1980, former Californian Republican Governor Ronald Reagan became president, pledging to advance what he called New Federalism and a return of power to the states. The hallmark of this action was the consolidation of many categorical grants into few, less restrictive block grants, large amounts of money given to states with only general spending guidelines. Many of these went to education and health care.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

James W. McCulloch, the cashier for the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States, was hardly a loyal servant of the American government. While in charge of managing the Bank, he spent most of his time looting its resources and later was jailed. McCulloch v. Maryland raises the issue that the ratification of the Constitution did not definitively settle: where does state sovereignty begin and end, and what does it mean when Article VI proclaims that the Constitution and laws of the U.S. are the supreme law of the land? While this question was not resolved with finality in 1819 when McCulloch was decided, Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion established that in a contest between national and state governments, the national government usually wins. The debate itself continued until the end of the Civil war when it was finally, but not conclusively, settled, even though today Americans still hear demands for states' rights. The McCulloch case focused on the Bank of the United States, a highly controversial institution from the moment it was first incorporated in 1791 during George Washington's first administration. The primary mover behind the Bank was Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton who, as a nationalist and Federalist, believed in a strong central government and who advocated fiscal soundness in the government's financial dealings. One way he thought that good planning could be achieved was to establish a national bank just as the English had done 100 years earlier when the Bank of England was created. A bank was necessary because: it provided a foundation for the new national government's right, duty, and ability to tax; it was a place to store the revenue; it gave the government credibility to secure loans from foreign countries; and it allowed the Treasury Department to manage the government's finances in a rational, fiscally sound manner. Hamilton argued that just because a bank was not explicitly listed in the Constitution as one of the new institutions of the United States, the government could establish one anyway because if was only a means for the government to carry out its new administrative functions. In this way, he argued that the creation of a bank was an implied, rather than an express, power of the government. In other words, government had the power to do whatever was necessary within the authority granted to it by the Constitution. The creation of a bank certainly fit into the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8. Many states opposed this Second Bank because it allowed private citizens to deposit their money in it, thus directly competing with local banks. As a result, many states, including Maryland, figured out a way to levy a tax on it: Maryland required the Bank to issue its notes on special stamped paper that Maryland itself sold to it at an annual cost of $15,000. The state would add an additional amount for each note printed. James McCulloch, as the Maryland cashier of the Second Bank, refused to pay the tax. Maryland sued him in Baltimore County Court, and he lost, whereupon he then appealed to the State's Court of Appeals, where he lost yet again. At that point, he appealed to the Supreme Court. Maryland's attorneys argued that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to establish a national bank, noting it was not among the enumerated powers. They also argued that if the Court interpreted the Constitution such that the national government did have the implied power to establish a national bank, then Maryland had the concurrent power to tax the bank. Lawyers for the national government in turn argued that the Constitution did indeed imply federal authority to establish a national bank and that Maryland's levying a tax on the bank was unconstitutional, for it impinged on the national government's ability to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities by take some of its financial resources. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the national government. The justices based their ruling on their interpretation of the Constitution's necessary and proper clause and the enumerated powers of Congress to "lay and collect taxes, to borrow money...and to regulate commerce among the several states." The Court said that, combined, these enumerated powers implied that the national government had the authority to charter a bank and to locate a branch in Maryland. Moreover, the Court found that Maryland did not have the right to tax that bank, because taxation by the state would interfere with the exercise of national authority.

Mandates

National mandates are statements in national laws, including the strings attached to grants-in-aid, that require state and local governments to do something specified by the national government. Many national mandates relate to ensuring citizens' constitutional rights. For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 extended the prohibitions against discrimination in employment established in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to state and local government employment. In this case, the national government enacted the law to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities and imposes it on state and local governments. When the national government assumes the entire cost of a mandate it imposes on a state or local government, it is a funded mandate. When the state or local government must cover all or some of the cost, it is an unfunded mandate. Because grants-in-aid are voluntary, state and local governments can determine whether or not they can afford to accept the grant and hence its mandate.

Strict constructionist

One of the primary issues concerning judicial decision making focuses on judicial philosophy, particularly what is called the activism/ restraint debate. Advocates of judicial restraint argue that the courts should allow the decisions of other branches to stand, even when they offend a judge's own principles. Restraintists defend their position by asserting that unelected judges make up the federal courts, which renders the judicial branch the least democratic branch of government. Consequently, the courts should defer policy making to other branches of government as much as possible. Restraintists often refer to Roe v. Wade (1973), the case that liberalized abortion laws, as a classic example of judicial activism run amok. They maintain that the Court should have deferred policy making on this sensitive issue to the states or to the elected branches of the federal government especially because the Court's decision invalidated the abortion laws of forty-seven states. Advocates of judicial restraint generally agree that judges should be strict constructionists: that they should interpret the Constitution as the Framers wrote and originally intended it. They argue that in determining the constitutionality of a statute or policy, the Court should rely on the explicit meanings of the clauses in the document, which can be clarified by looking at founding documents. Advocates of judicial activism contend that judges should use their power broadly to further justice. Activists argue that it is appropriate for courts to correct injustices committed by other branches of government. Implicit in this argument is the notion that courts need to protect oppressed minorities.

Extradition

Part of Article IV of the Constitution that requires states to extradite, or return, criminals to states where they have been convicted or are to stand trial; the legal process of sending individuals back to a state that accuses them of having committed a crime, and from which they have fled. The Constitution establishes a state governor's right to request the extradition of an accused criminal. Yet the courts have also supported governors' refusals to extradite individuals. To facilitate relations among states, Article I, section 10, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution sets the legal foundation for interstate cooperation in the form of interstate compacts, contracts between states that carry the force of law.

Grants-in-aid

Passage of the Sixteenth Amendment (1913) powerfully enhanced the ability of the national government to raise money. The amendment granted Congress the authority to collect income taxes from workers and corporations without apportioning the taxes among the states on the basis of population (which the Constitution had required before this amendment). With the capacity to raise more revenue, the national government could financially assist states. To help the state governments deal with the domestic problems spawned by the global economic depression that began in 1929 (the Great Depression), Congress and President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945) approved numerous policies, collectively called the New Deal. Grants-in-aid, transfers of money from one government (the national government) to another government (state and local governments) that need not be paid back, became a main mechanism of President Roosevelt's New Deal programs. State and local governments welcomed the national grants-in-aid, which assisted them in addressing the domestic matter that feel within their sovereignty while allowing them to make most of the specific program decisions to implement the policies. Through grants-in-aid, dual federalism was replaced by cooperative federalism in numerous policy matters. Collaborative intergovernmental relations was a product of cooperative federalism, which dominated national and state government relations from the New Deal era to the early 1960s.

No Child Left Behind Act (2002)

Primary and secondary education constitute a large share of federal government spending, totaling $40 billion in 2015, 4 percent of federal spending. In recent years, the largest shift towards the federal government in educational policy making came with the 2002 bipartisan education reform bill supported by the late Democratic Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Republican President George W. Bush, known as the No Child Left Behind Act. The legislation was designed to monitor student achievement in schools, paying special attention to disadvantaged student populations. The aim was to set high standards and measurable goals as a method of improving American education across states. Disillusionment grew over time with NCLB, with critics arguing that it set unrealistic and overly broad standards, to the particular detriment of already-challenged populations such as low-income families, students with disabilities, English learners, Native American students, foster and homeless youth, and migrant and seasonal farmworker children. They also claimed that it relied too heavily on the use of standardized tests, which had begun to drive the content of school curricula rather than reflect it—"teaching to the test." This meant that subjects not covered on tests, such as arts, music, or civics, could be discounted or even eliminated from schools. Through bipartisan support in Congress, the law was replaced at the end of 2015 with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which restores greater control to states over issues of accountability, teaching quality, and also school improvement.

Unitary government

System of government in which the local and regional governments derive all authority from a strong national government, like that found in Great Britain. The United States became the first country to adopt a federal system of government, wherein the national and state governments share power and derive all authority from the people, to remedy many of the problems experienced under the confederate system, established by the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles, the national government derived all of its powers from the states. This arrangement let to a weak national government often unable to respond to localized crises.

Nullification

The Alien and Sedition Acts became a major issue in the 1800 presidential election campaign, which led to the election of Jefferson, a vocal opponent of the acts. Upon taking office, Jefferson quickly pardoned all those who had been convicted under their provisions. The newly-elected majority Democratic-Republican Congress allowed the acts to expire before the Federalist-controlled U.S. Supreme Court had an opportunity to rule on the constitutionality of theses First Amendment infringements, although commentators then and now viewed them as unconstitutional. Ultimately, the resolutions declared the states' right to nullification, the right to declare null and void any federal law if a state thought the law violated the Constitution. The South's reserved right to nullification has never been upheld in federal courts. This issue continued over the ensuing decades, leading to the Civil War. Upon the end of the Civil War, the doctrine of nullification also disappeared.

Reserved powers

The Constitution's limited attention to state authority caused concern among citizens of the early American republic. Many people feared that the new national government would meddle in matters for which states had been responsible, in that way compromising state sovereignty. Citizens were also deeply concerned about their own liberties. As described in Chapter 2, within two years of the states' ratification of the Constitution, they ratified the Bill of Rights (1791), the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in response to those concerns. The Tenth Amendment asserts that 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." This reserved powers clause of the Tenth Amendment acknowledged the domestic matters over which the states had exercised authority since the ratification of their own constitutions.

United States v. Lopez (1995)

The national government's landmark Social Security Act of 1935 was a response to the Great Depression's devastating impact on the financial security of countless Americans. The congressional vote to establish Social Security was overwhelmingly favorable. Yet several states challenged the constitutionality of this expansive program shortly after its passage, claiming it infringed on their reserved police powers. In 1937, the Supreme Court had to decide: Was Social Security indeed a matter of general welfare for which Congress is delegated the authority to raise and spend money? Or was Social Security a matter for the state governments to address? The Court found the national policy to be constitutional—a reasonable congressional interpretation, the justices wrote, of the enumerated and implied powers of the national government. The Supreme Court's decisions in McCulloch and Social Security set the stage for the expansion of national power in domestic policy matters by combining the necessary and proper clause with such enumerated powers as the regulation of commerce and providing for the general welfare. Although throughout U.S. history, particularly since the 1930s, the Court has typically supported Congress's enactment of laws dealing with matters implied by—but not specifically enumerated in—the Constitution, Congress does not always get its way. For example, in 1995 the Supreme Court, in United States v. Lopez, rejected the national government's claim that its Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was a necessary and proper means to regulate interstate commerce. The Court found the act unconstitutional because it infringed on states' reserved police powers; state governments have authority to create gun-free zones, and they can extend that authority to their local governments.

Police powers

These matters include the handling of the daily affairs of the people—laws regarding birth, death, marriage, intrastate business, commerce, crime, health, morals, and safety. The states' reserved powers to protect the health, safety, lives, and property of their citizens are their police powers. It was over these domestic matters, internal to each state, that the state retained sovereignty according to the Tenth Amendment.

Conditions of aid/string

They are subject to detailed conditions imposed by the national government. Often, they are made available on a matching basis; states must contribute money to match federal funds, although the national government may pay as much as 90 percent of the total. These conditions help the national government alter states' policy priorities or to coerce states to adopt particular policy objectives.

Compact theory

Thomas Jefferson, representative of the Democratic-Republicans, responds to President John Adams and the Federalist Congress passing the Alien and Sedition Acts. These acts banned any criticism of the Federalist government by the growing numbers of the Democratic-Republicans in 1798 informally headed by Jefferson. When the states ratified the First Amendment in 1791, it was considered to protect against prior restraint of speech and expression—meaning to guard against the prohibition of speech or publication before the fact. Although in violation of the First Amendment's ban on prior restraint, the Adams administration successfully prosecuted, and partisan Federalist judges imposed fines and jail terms on at least ten Democratic-Republican newspaper editors. Jefferson responded to the new laws while also developing a more general philosophy of the compact theory, which held that the 13 sovereign states, in creating the federal government, had entered into a compact, or contract, regarding its jurisdiction., The states created the national government and thus could judge whether federal authorities had broken the compact by overstepping the limited authority they granted in the first place. This theory challenged the authority of the federal judicial branch and the supremacy of national law. Jefferson and his supporters, however, believed that if the Federalists could stamp out free speech and free press with these harsh measures, they could soon violate other liberties in the compact. So, in secret to avoid prosecution, he penned a series of resolution to address this violation, which became the bedrock ideas for the Jeffersonian movement and the Anti-Federalists' resurgence.

Marble cake federalism

Under Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), the Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the massive New Deal relief programs, including the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, which authorized collective bargaining between unions and employees; the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which set a national minimum wage; and the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which provided crop subsidies to farmers. Congress then used these newly recognized powers to legislate in a wide range of areas, including maximum hour laws and regulation of child labor. The New Deal dramatically changed the federal system. Most political scientists likened the federal system before the 1930s to a layer cake: in most policy areas, each level or layer of government—national, state, and local—had clearly defined powers and responsibilities. By contrast, the marble cake federalism metaphor refers to what political scientists call cooperative federalism, a term that describes the intertwined relations among the national, state, and local governments. (See also cooperative federalism and fiscal federalism.)

Selective exclusiveness

Under the "Cooley Doctrine," or selective exclusiveness, some state constitutions are understood to create an absolute right to local self-government, which cannot be abridged by the state legislature. Cooley's view was that local governments pre-dated the formation of state governments and therefore should be treated as parallel to the state, rather than as creatures of the state. Before that case, conflict and confusion characterized the Court's decisions in commerce clause cases. Some Justices believed that Congress's power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce was an exclusive power and others that the states shared concurrent power over commerce. Some believed that a distinction existed between the national power over commerce and the state police power. Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852) provided a compromise doctrine that transformed judicial thinking. The Court recognized that commerce embraces a vast field of diverse subjects, some demanding a single uniform rule that only Congress might make, and others best served by state regulations based on local needs and differences. Thus the doctrine treated congressional power as exclusive on a selective basis—in only those cases requiring uniform legislation; and the states shared a concurrent power in other cases. In cases of conflict, of course, congressional action would prevail.

Commerce clause

[Article I, Section 8, Clause 3] "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." With the Supreme Court's support, Congress has interpreted Clause 3 in a way that has allowed it to expand its involvement in the economy and the daily lives of U.S. citizens. However, state governments have frequently challenged Congress's expansion of power by way of the commerce clause when they believe that Congress is infringing on their constitutional authority. As the nation grew, so did the bureaucracy. In the wake of the tremendous growth of big business, widespread price fixing, and other unfair business practices that occurred after the Civil War, Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in 1887. In doing so, Congress was reacting to public outcries over exorbitant rates charged by railroad companies for hauling freight. It became the first independent regulatory commission, and entity outside a major executive department. Congress creates independent regulatory commissions like the ICC, which generally focus on particular aspects of the economy. Commission members are appointed by the president and hold their job for fixed terms, but the president cannot remove commissioners unless they fail to uphold their oaths of office. The creation of the ICC also marked a shift in the focus of the bureaucracy from service to regulation, giving the government—in the shape of bureaucracy—vast powers over individual and property rights.

Privileges and immunities clause

[Article III, Section 2, Clause 1] "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." [Clause 2] A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the States from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. [Clause 3] No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Law thereof, escaping int another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." No matter what state they find themselves in, all U.S. citizens are entitled to the same privileges and rights as the citizens of that state. In other words, the citizens of each state have the same rights as citizens of all other states. If requested by a governor of another state, a state is obligated to return an accused felon to the state from which he or she fled. The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) eliminated a state's obligation to return slaves feeling from their enslavement in another state.

Block grants

a large grant given to a state by the federal government with only general spending guidelines; a grant-in-aid for a broadly define policy area, whose funding amount is typically based on a formula.

Categorical grants

grants that appropriate federal funds to state for a specific purpose.

Concurrent powers

powers shared by the national and state governments; basic governing functions that are exercised by the national and state governments independently, and at the same time, including the power to make policy, raise revenue, implement policies, and establish courts. For example, national and state governments make their own public policies, and raise and spend their own revenues to implement their policies. In addition, the national court system resolves conflicts over the interpretation of national laws and each state has its own court system to resolve conflicts over its state laws. State governments delegate some concurrent powers to the local governments they create so that the local governments can govern. In addition to the basic governing powers that the national and state governments hold concurrently, in the federal system the national government and the state governments have sovereignty over different matters. We now consider the distinct sovereign powers of the national and state governments.

Implied powers

the Constitution gives Congress implied powers, powers that are not described explicitly but that may be interpreted to be necessary to fulfill the enumerated powers. Congress specifically receives implied powers through the Constitution's necessary and proper clause (elastic clause), because the national government uses this passage to stretch its enumerated authority.

Dual federalism

the initial model of national and state relations in which the national government takes care of its enumerated powers while the state governments independently take care of their reserved powers. In the early to mi-1800s, a national crisis began over the division of power between the states and the federal government. One major battleground in this struggle was the issue of slavery, which the pro-states' rights Southern states fought to maintain. In contrast, the Northern states, where commercial and manufacturing interests were more powerful, favored greater national power. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who succeeded John Marshall, saw the Court as an arbiter of those competing state and nationalist views. Chief Justice Taney and the Court also began to articulate further the notions of concurrent power and dual federalism. Dual federalism posits that having separate and equally powerful state and national governments is the best constitutional arrangement. Adherents of this theory typically believe the national government should not exceed its constitutionally enumerated powers; and as stated in the Tenth Amendment, all other powers are, and should be, reserved to the states or to the people.

Clean Air Act (1970)

the landmark Clean Air Act of 1970 delegates authority to the Environmental Protection Agency (established via the Environmental Protection Act, passed in 1969) to establish standards for regulating emissions of hazardous air pollutants. The act also mandated each state to develop and implement plans to meet EPA standards. Today, states typically delegate some of their enforcement responsibilities to local governments. If states and their local governments do not enforce compliance with the national standards or their own stricter standards, then the EPA can take over, enforcing national law through preemption. To bolster compliance with the Clean Air Act, the law gives citizens the right to sue those who are violating the standards. Citizens also have the right to sue the EPA if it does not enforce the Clean Air Act.

Fiscal federalism

the relationship between the national government and the state and local governments whereby the national government provides grant money to state and local governments. Although the national government shared its revenue surplus with the states in the form of grants-in-aid in 1837 (see grants-in-aid), it did not make a habit of offering grants-in-aid until the Great Depression of the 1930s. Today (2016), federal grants-in-aid are 17 percent of the national government's annual spending, and they pay for about one-third of total state government funding.