ch. 3 gov hw
For the three Supreme Court cases here understand the following: -what Constitutional questions are asked? -What was the Court's decision? -What impact has this had in American government?
McCulloch v. Maryland McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) was the first major Supreme Court decision to define the relationship between the national and state governments. In 1816, Congress chartered teh Second National Bank of the US. (The charter of the First Bank had been allowed to expire). In 1818, the Maryland state legislature levied a tax requiring all banks not chartered by Maryland (that is, the Second Bank of the US) to: (1) buy stamped paper from teh state on which their bank notes were to be issued; (2) pay the state $15K a year, or, (3) go out of business. James McCulloch, the head cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the US, refused to pay the tax, and Maryland brought suit against him. After losing in a Maryland state court, McCulloch appealed the decision to the US Supreme COurt by order of the US secretary of the treasury. In a unanimous option, the Court answered the 2 central questions that had been presented to it: did COngres shave the authority to charter a bank? And, if it did, could a state tax it? Chief Justice John Marshall's answer to the first question—whether Congress had the right to establish a bank or another type of corporation—continues to stand as the classic exposition of the doctrine of implied powers and as a reaffirmation of the authority of a strong national government. Although the word "bank" cannot be found in the Constitution enumerates powers that give Congress the authority to levy and collect taxes, issue currency, and borrow funds. From these enumerated powers, Marshall found, it was reasonable to imply that Congress had the power to charter a bank, which could be considered "necessary and proper" to the exercise of its aforementioned enumerated powers. Marshall next addressed the question of whether a federal bank could be taxed by any state government. To Marshall, this was not a difficult question. The national government was dependent on the people, not the states, fro its powers. In addition, marshall notes, the constitution specifically calls fr the national law to be supreme. "The power to tax ivolves the power to destroy," wrote Marshall. Thus, the state violated the supremacy clause, because individual states cannot interfere with the operations of the national government, whose laws are supreme. The Court's decision in McCulloch has far-reaching consequences even today. the necessary and proper clause is used to justify federal action in many areas, including social welfare problems. Furthermore, had Marshall allowed the state of Maryland to tax the federal bank, it is possible that states could have attempted to tax all federal agencies located within their boundaries, a costly proposition that could have driven the federal government into insurmountable debt. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Shortly after McCulloch, the Marshall Court had another opportunity to rule in favor of a broad interpretation of the scope of national power. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) involved a dispute that that arose after the New York State legislature granted to Robert Fulton the exclusive right to operate steamboats on the Hudson River. Simultaneously, Congress licensed a ship to sail on the same waters. By the time the case reached the SUpreme Court, it was complicated both factually and procedurally. Suffice it to say that both New York and New Jersey wanted to control shipping on the lower Hudson River. But, Gibbons actually addressed one simple, very important question: what was the scope of Congress's authority under the commerce clause? The states argued that "commerce," as mentioned in Article I, should be interpreted narrowly to include only direct dealings in products. In Gibbons, however, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce included the power to regulate commercial activity as well, and that the commerce power had no limits except those specifically found in the Constitution. Thus, New York had no constitutional authority to grant a monopoly to a single steamboat operator, an action that interfered with interstate commerce. Barron v. Baltimore In 1833, in one of Chief Justice Marshall's last major cases on the federal-state relationship, in Barron v. Baltimore, the Court addressed the issue of whether the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to actions of the states. John Barron, a Baltimore businessman, ran a successful docking business off the city's wharf. As the city entered into a period of extensive building and road construction, dirt was deposited into Barron's wharf. In addition, sand and silt drifted to his section of the wharf making t unusable as a place for ships to harbor. Barron the sued the city and state for damages, arguing that the city took his lands "without just compensation" as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Marshall Court ruled that Barron had no federal claim because enumerated rights contained in the Bill of Rights were not a limit on states. In fact, states were free to add to those rights or ignore them all together.
How could a same-sex couple married in one state be granted a divorce in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage?
That state still has to recognize the marriage document because it was legitimately made in another state (full faith and credit clause) (Truly usually couldn't get a divorce)
unitary system
System of government where the local and regional governments derive all authority from a strong national government.
Federal system
System of government where the national government and state governments share power and derive all authority from the people.
Define New Federalism. Note the difference in block grants to categorical grants.
Terms
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
The Supreme Court concluded that the U.S. Congress lacked the constitutional authority to bar slavery in the territories. This decision narrowed the scope of national power, while it enhanced that of the states.
Preemption
A concept that allows the national government to override state or local actions in certain areas.
Block grant
A large grant given to a state by the federal government with only general spending guidelines.
Bill of attainder
A law declaring an act illegal without a judicial trial
Review the significance of U.S. v Lopez.
According to one observer, the federalism decisions of teh Rehnquist court were "a reexamination of the country's most basic constitutional arrangements." The Court's decisions largely agreed with Reagan's states' rights views and limited powers of Congress. For example, in US v Lopez (1995), which involved the conviction of a student charged with carrying a concealed handgun onto school property, a 5 person majority of the court ruled that congress lacked constitutional authority under the commerce clause to regulate guns within 1K ft of a school. The majority concluded that local gun control laws, even those involving schools, were a state, not a federal, matter. Similarly, in 2000, the court ruled that congress had exceeded its powers again under the commerce clause in enacting some provisions of the violence against women act. This victory for state power, however, may be short lived. The Supreme Court's decisions in federalism cases under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appear much more mixed. Instead of considering the kind of highly visible cases taken up by the Rehnquist Court, observers are still looking for indications of a new direction. The extent to which the Roberts COurt will ultimately throw its support to national or to state authority. In our federal system remains to be seen, but the Court is clearly in a strong position to arbitrate the contentious balance of power in the american republic.
Sixteenth Amendment
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that authorized Congress to enact a national income tax.
Seventeenth Amendment
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that made senators directly elected by the people, removing their selection from state legislatures.
What are the differences between a federal, confederation, and unitary form of government?
As discussed in chapter 2, the Unites States was the first country to adopt a federal system of government (although the word "federal" never appears in the U.S. Constitution). This system of government, where the national government and state governments share power and derive all authority from the people, was designed to remedy many of the problems experiences under the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles, the United States was governed as a confederation where the national government derived all of its powers from the states. This led to a weak national government that was often unable to respond to even small crises, such as Shay's Rebellion. The new system of government also had to be different from the unitary system found in Great Britain, where the local and regional governments derived all their power from a strong national government. Having been under the rule of English kings, whom they considered tyrants, the Framers feared centralizing power in one government or institution. Therefore, they made both the state and the federal government accountable to the people at large. While the governments shared some powers, such as the ability to tax, each government was supreme in some spheres, as described in the following section. The federal system as conceived by the Framers has proven tremendously effective. Since the creation of the U.S. system, many other nations, including Canada (1867), Mexico (1917), and Russia (1993), have adopted federal systems in their constitutions.
Interstate compacts
Contracts between states that carry the force of law; generally now used as a tool to address multistate policy concerns.
New Federalism
Federal-state relationship proposed by Reagan administration during the 1980s; hallmark is returning administrative powers to the state governments.
Categorical grant
Grant that allocated federal funds to states for a specific purpose
Ex post facto law
Law that makes an act punishable as a crime even if the action was legal at the time it was committed
The Devolution Revolution and preemption were Republican led initiatives; how did they both adhere to a conservative political ideology?
In 1994, republican candidates fro the house join eve toghet in support for the contract with america, a campaign document proposed by then house minority whip newt Gingrich. In it, Republican candidates pledged to force a national debate on the role of the national government in regard to the sates. A top priority was scaling back the federal government, an effort that some commentators called the devolution revolution. Running under a clear set of priorities contained in teh Contract, Republican candidates took back the House of Representatives fro the first time in more than 40 years. A majority of the legislative proposals based on the contract passed the House of Representatives during the first 100 days of the 104th congress. However, very few of the contract's proposals, including acts requiring balanced budget, tax reforms, term limits, passed the senate to become law. Another important act passed by the Republican controlled Congress and signed into law by president bill Clinton in 1996 was legislation that replaced the existing federal welfare program with a program known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). TANF returned much of the administrative power for welfare programs to the sates and became a hallmark of the devolution revolution. On the campaign trail in 2000, then Texas governor George w bush, the republican candidate for president, made it clear that he would follow in the tradition of former President Ronald reagan in moving to return power to the staes. Yet, no one could have foreseen the circumstances that would surround much of bush's presidency. A struggling economy, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the pentagon, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the costly war in Iraq, as well as the rising costs of entitlement programs, produced state and federal budget deficits that would have been unimaginable only a few years before. The No Child Left Behind Act, which imposed a host of federal requirements on everything from class size to accountability testing was also viewed by many as an unprecedented preemption of state and local powers. Allowing the national government to override state or local actions in certain areas is not new. The growth of preemption statutes Bergman in 1965 during the Johnson administration. However, until recently, preemption statues generally were supported by democrats in congress and the White House, not republicans. The bush administration's support of this law reflected a new era of preemption.
How does Article IV help explain state and national powers (interstate relations) under our Constitution?
In additional to delineating the relationship of the states with the national government, the Constitution provides a mechanism for resolving interstate disputes and facilitating relations among states. To avoid any sense of favoritism, it provides that disputes between states be settled directly by the U.S. Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction as mandated by Article III of the Constitution. Moreover, Article IV requires that each state give "Full Faith and Credit... to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The full faith and credit clause ensures judicial decrees and contracts made in one state will be binding an enforceable in another, thereby facilitating trade and other commercial relationships. Full faith and credit cases continue to make their way through the judicial system. For example, a state's refusal to honor same-sex marriage contracts poses interesting constitutional questions. Article IV also contains the privileges and immunities clause, guaranteeing that the citizens of each state are afforded the same rights as citizens of all other states. In addition, Article IV contains the extradition clause, which requires states to extradite, or return, criminals to states where they have been convicted or are to stand trial. 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. More. Than 200 interstate compacts exist today. While some deal with rudimentary items such as state boundaries, others help states carry out their policy objectives and administrative functions. Although several i state compacts still exist, other compactors have as many as 50 signatories. The Drivers License Compact, for example, was signed by all 50 states to facilitate nationwide recognition of licenses issued in the respective states. States today find that interstate compacts help them maintain control because compacts with other states allow for sharing resources, expertise, and responses that often are available more quickly than those from the federal government. The Emergency Management Assistance Compact, for example, allows states to cooperate and to share resources in the even of natural and human-made disasters.
Understand why dual federalism emerged and then what led to its decline.
In the early to mid-1800s, the nation was growing at such a rapid pace that the political clout of big business was declining. Changes in many state constitutions extended the right to vote for those who owned property to others, including the poor, farmers, and workers. This expansion of the electorate brought with it a decline in influence for pro-business voters, who tended to view the economy through nationalist lenses. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (1835-1863), who succeeded John Marshall in 1835, saw the Court as above these pressures and as an arbiter of those competing state and nationalist views. In a series of cases involving the scope of Congress's power under the commerce clause, the Taney Court further developed doctrines first enunciated by Marshall. The Taney Court emphasized the authority of the states to make laws "necessary to their well being and prosperity." Over time, CHief Justice Taney and the Court 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 and one envisioned by the Framers. Adherents of this theory typically believe that the national government should not exceed its constitutionally enumerated powers, and as state in the Tenth Amendment, all other powers are, and should be, reserved to the states or to the people. The Civil War forever changed the nature of federalism, as the concept of dual federalism and its emphasis on the role of the states was destroyed along with the Confederacy. In the aftermath of the Civil War and the addition of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, a profound change occurred in the reunited nation's concept of federalism. After 1861, there was a slow but erratic increase in the role of the national government. The sates and the national government began to work together on a variety of projects, including railroad construction, banking, canal building, and ports. The Supreme Court assisted in this gradual transition to increased federal power, recognizing the need for national control over new technological developments such as the telegraph. And, beginning in the 1880s, the Court allowed Congress to regulate many aspects of economic relationships such as the outlawing of monopolies, a type of regulation or power formerly thought to be in the exclusive 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. But, the Supreme Court did not consistently enlarge the scope of national power in the pre-New Deal period. In 1895, for example, the US filed suit against four sugar refiners, alleging that the sale of those 4 companies would give their buyer control of 98 percent of the US sugar-refining business. The SUpreme Court ruled that congressional efforts to control monopolies (through the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act) did not give Congress the authority to prevent hte sale of these sugar-regaining businesses, becuase manufacturing was not commerce. Therefore, the companies and their actions were found to be beyond the scope of Congress's authority to regulate.
Note how the passage of Amendments (16th & 17th in particular) impacted the three principals of the US Constitution.
Later that same year, the US Supreme Court found a congressional effort to tax personal incomes unconstitutional, although an earlier Court had found similar tax levied during the Civil War Constituiton. Thus, Congress and the state legislatures were moved to ratify the 16th Amendment. The 16th 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 person income "removed a major constraint on the federal government by giving it access to almost unlimited revenues." If money is power, the income tax and the revenues it generated greatly enhanced the power of the federal government and its ability to enter policy areas where it formerly had few funds to spend. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, similarly enhanced the power of the national government at the expense of the states. This enhancement terminated the state legislatures' election of senators and put 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. Coupled with the 16th amendment, this amendment paved the way for more drastic changes in the relationship between national and state governments of the US.
Progressive federalism
Movement that gives state officials significant leeway in acting on issues normally considered national in scope, such as the environment and consumer protection.
Describe the types of powers of the national government (enumerated, implied...) in the Constitution and which articles (or clauses) they are derived from. Do the same under the state governments. What about concurrent and denied powers?
National Powers Under the Constitution Chief among the exclusive powers of the national government are the authorities to coin money, conduct foreign relations, provide for an army and navy, and declare way. All of these powers set out in Article I, section 8, of the Constitution are called enumerated powers. Article I, section 8, also contains the necessary and proper clause 9also called the elastic clause), which gives Congress the authority to enact any laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out any of its enumerated powers. These powers derived from enumerated powers and the necessary and proper clause are known as implied powers. The federal government's right to collect duties and excises was also clearly set out in the Constitution. The Framers wanted to avoid the financial problems that the national government experienced under the Articles of Confederation. If the new national governments as to be strong, its power to raise revenue had to be unquestionable. Allowing the new national government to collect tariffs, or taxes on imported goods, was one way to assert this power. And, giving the national government the exclusive power to do so eliminated the excise wars between states that had occurred under the Articles. Article VI of the federal Constitution underscores the notion that the national government is to be supreme in situations of conflict between state and national law. It declares that the U.S. Constitution, the laws of the Unites States, and its treaties, are to be "the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby." In spite of this explicit language, the meaning of what is called the supremacy clause has been subject to continuous judicial interpretation. In 1920, for example, Missouri sought to prevent the U.S. game warden from enforcing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which prohibited the killing or capturing of many species of birds as they made their annual migration across the international border from Canada to parts of the United States. Missouri argued that the Tenth Amendment, which reserved a state's powers to legislate for the general welfare of its citizens allowed Missouri to regulate hunting. But, the Court ruled that since the treaty was legal, it must be considered supreme law of the land. State Powers Under the Constitution Because states had 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 powers of the states. Article I, however, allows states to set the "Times, Places, and Manner, for holding elections for senators and representatives." Article II requires that each state appoint electors to vote for president. And, Article IV provides each state a "Republican Form of Government," meaning one that represents the citizens of the state. It was not until the Tenth Amendment, the final part of the Bill of Rights, that the states' powers were 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 or police powers, include the ability to legislate for the public health, safety, and morals of their citizens. Today, the states' rights to legislate under their police powers are used as the rationale for many states' restrictions on abortion. Police powers are also the basis for state criminal laws, including varied laws concerning the death penalty. As long as the U.S. Supreme Court continues to find that the death penalty does not violate the U.S. Constitution, the states may impose it, be it by lethal injection, gas chamber, or the electric chair. Concurrent Powers Under the Constitution As revealed in Figure 3.3, national and state powers overlap. The area where the systems overlap represents concurrent powers—powers shared by the national and state governments. States already had the power to tax; the Constitution extended this power to the national government as well. Other important concurrent powers include the rights to borrow money, establish courts, charter banks, and spend money for the general welfare. In illustration of concurrent powers, most individuals must file both state and federal tax returns. Powers Denied Under the Constitution Some powers are explicitly denied to the national government or the states under Article I of the Constitution. Congress, for example, is barred from favoring one state over another in regulating commerce, and it cannot lay duties on items exported from any state. The national government is also prohibited from granting titles of nobility and employees of the government may not accept salaries or gifts from foreign heads of state. State governments (as well as the national government) are denied the authority to take arbitrary actions affecting constitutional rights and liberties. Neither national nor state government may pass a bill. Of attainder, a law declaring an act illegal without a judicial trial. The Constitution also bars the national and state governments from passing ex post facto laws, laws that make an act punishable as a crime even if the action was legal at the time it was committed.
Unfunded mandates
National laws that direct state or local governments to comply with federal rules or regulations (such as clean air or water standards) but contain little or no federal funding to defray the cost of meeting these requirements.
Is a federal law such as DOMA consistent with the wishes of the Framers, who left regulation of marriage largely to the states?
No, even though the Framers left marriage mostly to state discretion, the Framers still added the full faith and credit clause, meaning that items from one state must be honored in others, so some states should not be able to disregard marriages from other states.
Should states or the federal government be allowed to create public policy exceptions to the full faith and credit clause?
No, the federal government has supreme power over the states.
Understand how unfunded mandates and the Republican Congress of the 1990s addressed a big concern in federalism.
On some issues, however, republicans were able to achieve their goals. For example, before 1995, unfunded mandates, national laws that direct state or local governments to comply with federal rules or regulations (such as clean air or water standards) but contain no federal funding to defray the cost of meeting thee requirements, absorbed nearly 30 percent of some local budgets. Republicans in congress, loyal to the concerns of these governments, secured passage of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This act prevented Congress from passing costly federal programs without debate on how to fund them and addressed a primary concern for state governments.
Privileges and immunities clause
Part of Article IV of the Constitution guaranteeing that the citizens of each state are afforded the same rights as citizens of all other states.
Extradition clause
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.
Reserved (or police) powers
Powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment that lie at the foundation of a state's right to legislation for the public health and welfare of its citizens.
Concurrent powers
Powers shared by the national and state governments
How do you feel about the Progressive Federalism initiative on issues like the environment? Is it "laboratories of democracy" or "free-for-all federalism"?
Progressive federalism encourages states to act as what Justice Louis Brandeis called "Laboratories of democracy." States can, in effect, test new an innovative solutions to policy problems thats if successful, may later be adopted by the federal government. In addition, this approach to federalism is a pragmatic one. It allows policy makers to achieve their policy goals gradually—in this case, more stringent emission standards—without having to work with the US Congress, where such policies may not be well received. But, not everyone views progressive federalism positively. Critics, including the US Chamber of Commerce, have called progressive federalism "free-for-all federalism." They charge that the emission standards, in particular, will lead to a costly "patchwork of laws impacting a troubled (automotive) industry." Complying with a variety of state standards, they note, is more costly than meeting one national standard. It is also more expensive to monitor and lobby the legislatures of each of the 50 states than it is to address only the EPA.
Full faith and credit clause
Section of Article IV of the Constitution that ensures judicial decrees and contracts made in one state will be binding and enforceable in any other state.
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
The Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the actions of states. This decision limited the Bill of Rights to the actions of Congress alone.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
The Supreme Court upheld broad congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court's broad interpretation of the Constitution's commerce clause paved the way for later rulings upholding expansive federal powers.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
The Supreme Court upheld the power of the national government and denied the right of a state to tax the federal bank using the Constitution's supremacy clause. The Court's broad interpretation of the necessary and proper clause paved the way for later rulings upholding expansive federal powers.
Dual federalism
The belief that having separate and equally powerful levels of government is the best arrangement.
What was the impetus behind cooperative federalism emerging?
The era of dual federalism came to an end in the 1930s. While the ratification of the 16th and 17th amendments set the stage for expanded national government, the catalyst for dual federalism's demise was a series of economic events that needed in the cataclysm of the Great Depression. Through the 1920s, bank failures were common In 1921, the nation experienced a severe slump in agricultural prices. In 1926, the construction industry went into decline. In the summer of 1929, inventories of consumer goods and automobiles were at an all-time high. On October 29, 1929, stock prices, which ahd risen steadily since 1926, crashed, taking with them the entire national economy. Despite the severity of these indicators, president Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover took little action, believing that the natoinal depression was an amalgamation of state economic crises that should be dealt with by state and local governments. However, by 1933, the situation could no longer be ignored. Rampant unemployment (historic estimate it was as high as 40 to 50 percent) was the hallmark of the Great Depression. In 1933, to combat severe problems facing the nation, newly elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) proposed a variety of innovative programs, collectively called the "New DEal," and ushered in a new era in American politics. FDR used the full power of the office of the presidents s well as his highly effective communication skills to sell the American public and congress on a new level of government intervention intended to stabilize the economy and reduce suffering. Most politicians during the New Deal period (1933-1939) agreed that to find national solutions to the Depresssion, which was affecting the citizens of every state in the union, the national government would have to exercise tremendous authority. In the first few weeks of the legislative session after FDR's inauguration, Congress passed a series of acts creating new federal agencies and programs proposed by the president. These new agencies, often known by their initials, created what many termed an alphabetocracy. Among the more significant programs were the federal housing administration (fha), which provided federal financing for new home construction; the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), a work relief program for farmers and homeowners; the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) and the National Recovery Administration (NRA), which imposed restrictions on production in agricultures dn many industries while also providing subsidies to farmers. New deal programs forced all levels of government to work cooperatively with one another. Indeed, local governments—mainly in big cities—became a third partner in the deferral system as FDR relied on big-city democratic political machines to turn out voters to support his programs. Cities were embraced as equal patterns in an intergovernmental system for the first time and became players in the national political arena because many members of congress wanted to bypass state legislatures, where urban intersts usually were underrepresented. New Deal programs also enlarged the scope of the national government. Those who feared this unprecedented use of national power quickly challenged the constitutionality of the programs in court. And, at least initially, the US Supreme Court often agreed w them. Through the mid-1930s, the court continued to rule that certain aspects of new deal programs went beyond the authority of congress to regulate commerce. The court's Kaiser-faire, or hands-off, attitude toward the economy was reflected in a series of decisions ruling various aspects of New Deal programs unconstitutional. FDR and the Congress were livid. FDR's frustration with the Court prompted him to stuffiest what ultimately was nicknamed his "Court-packing plan." Knowing that the could do little to change the minds of those already on the Court, FDR suggested enlarging its size from 9 to 13 justices. This would have given him the opportunity to pack the court with a majority of justices predisposed toward the constitutional validity of the New Deal. Even though Roosevelt was popular, the Court-packing plan was not. congress and the public were outraged that he even suggested tampering with an institution of government. Nevertheless, the Court appeared to respond to this threat. in 1937, it reversed its series of anti- New Deal decisions, concluding that Congress (and therefore the national government) had the authority to legislate in any area so long as what was regulated affected commerce in any way. The Court also upheld the constitutionality of the bulk 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 prohibited the interstate shipment of goods made employees earning less than the federally mandated minimum wage; and the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which provided crop subsidies to farmers. Congress then used this newly recognized power to legislate in a wide array of areas, including maximum hours and minimum wage laws and regulation of child labor. Before the Depression and the New Deal, most political scientists likened the federal system to a layer cake: in most policy areas, each level or layer of government—national, state, and local—had clearly defined powers and responsibilities. After the new Deal however, government looked more like a marble cake. The metaphor of marble cake federalism refers to what political scientists call cooperative federalism, a term that describes the intertwined relationship among the national, state, and local governments that began with the New Deal. States began to take a secondary, albeit important, cooperative role in the scheme of governance, as did many cities. This shift in power from the states to the national government is exemplified by the New Deal and other social welfare programs such as President Lyndon B Johnson's Great Society.
Tenth Amendment
The final part of the Bill of Rights that defines the basic principle of American federalism in stating that the powers not delegated to the national government are reserved to the states or to the people.
Cooperative federalism
The intertwined relationship between the national, state, and local governments that began with the New Deal.
New Deal
The name given to the program of "Relief, Recovery, Reform" begun by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 to bring the United States out of the Great Depression.
Nullification
The purported right of a state to declare void a federal law.
Confederation
Type of government where the national government derives its powers from the states; a league of independent states.
Why can the doctrine of nullification not be valid in our federalist system?
While the courts were carving out the appropriate roles of each level of government int he federal system, the political debate over states' rights continued to swirl in large part over what is called the doctrine of nullification, the purported d right of a state to declare void a federal law. As early as 1789, Congress approved the very unpopular Alien and Sedition Acts, which were passed by the Federalist COngress to prevent criticism of the national government. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others who opposed the acts suggested that the states had the right to nullify any federal law that in the opinion of the states violated the Constitution. The issue, however, was never decided by the SUpreme Court because the Alien and Sedition Acts expired before the Court could hear a challenge to them. The question of nullification came up again in 1828 when the national government enacted a tariff act, most commmonly referred to as the "Tariff of Abominations," that raised duties on raw materials, iron, hemp, and flax and reduced protections against imported woolen goods. John C. Calhoun, who served as Vice President from 1825-1832 under president Andrew Jackson, broke with Jackson over the tariff bill because it badly affected his home state of South Carolina. Not only did South Carolinians have to pay more for raw materials because of the tariff bill, it was also becoming more and more difficult for them to sell their dwindling crops abroad for a profit. Calhoun thus formulated a theory to justify South Carolina's refusal to abide by the federal tariff law. Later, he used the same nullification theory to justify the southern states' resistance to national actions to limit slavery. Calhoun theorized that the federal government was but the agent of the states (the people and the individual state governments) and that the Constitution was simply a compact that provided instructions about how the agent was to act. Thus, according to Calhoun, the US Supreme Court was not legally competent to pass judgement on the constitutional validity of acts of COngress. Like Congress, the COurt was only a branch of government created by and answerable to the sates. Calhoun posited that if the people of any individual state did not like an act of Congress, they could hold a convention to nullify that act of Congress. In the state contesting the act, the law would have no force until 3/4 of all of the states ratified an amendment expressly giving Congress that power. Them,e if the nullifying state did not wish to be bound by the new provision, it could secede, or withdraw from the nation. In their fight to keep slavery, which began in the 1850s, the southern states relied heavily on Calhoun's theories to justify their secession from the union, which ultimately led to the Civil War.