Federalism

  • August 27, 2010
    Education Policy
    Guest Post

    By Sonja Ralston, a judicial law clerk to the Hon. Guido Calabresi of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Ralston taught bilingual first grade prior to law school, and has published several scholarly papers on education law.

    On Tuesday, the federal Department of Education announced the winners of the final round of its Race to the Top program. Nine states and the District of Columbia join Delaware and Tennessee, which won the first round in April. All told, forty-six states and the District of Columbia competed for a share of the $4 billion in prize money to implement comprehensive education reform plans, making it the largest state-based "competitive, discretionary grant" - in short, prize - in national history.

    Though prizes are not an entirely new means of governing (in 1714, Parliament established the Longitude Prize to develop accurate measures of longitude on the open water and awarded £100,000 over fifty years), the Obama administration has newly emphasized competitive grants. But even among the administration's prize programs, Race to the Top is special: unlike the Longitude Prize or the Department of Energy's prizes for energy-efficient light bulbs and better batteries, the goal is to spur policy rather than technological innovation. Therefore, it invites states rather than individuals, companies, universities, or cities to compete.

    Race to the Top represents a new approach to federalism: one that strikes a better state/federal balance in substantive policymaking than traditional spending programs while simultaneously doing more to leverage the impact of federal dollars.

  • June 17, 2010

    Dawn Johnsen, President Obama's initial nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) provided a ringing call for young lawyers and other advocates of progressive values to stay to true to their principles and not fear speaking out on behalf of them for fear of losing potential political rewards.

  • May 27, 2010
    BookTalk
    The Ideological Origins of American Federalism
    By: 
    Alison L. LaCroix

    By Alison L. LaCroix, Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School.
    Federalism is frequently regarded as one of the signal American contributions to the modern science of politics. Today, however, it is at once everywhere and nowhere in American constitutional and political discussions. Current debates over issues as diverse as the healthcare bill, the economic stimulus package, abortion, and medical marijuana - not to mention the emergence of the Tea Party, with its cry of "states' rights" - confirm this suspicion. Most Americans routinely employ the word "federal" to refer to a federal case, federal law, the actions of a federal prosecutor, or to the federal government itself. But what exactly does the term "federal" mean, and how did it come to have that meaning?

    For decades, historians and constitutional scholars have been engaged in a quest to understand the legal and political worldview on which the United States was founded. Liberalism, republicanism, popular sovereignty, commonwealth - each of these notions has contributed valuable insights into the conceptual and practical framework that underpinned the nation's founding and that continues to inform American political philosophy and public life.

    Federalism must be added to this list as a foundational idea of American law and politics. The rise of American federalism in the second half of the eighteenth century should be understood as an ideological development - and, indeed, as one of the most important ideological developments of the period. Thus, it was not simply a matter of political expedience or an institutional cover for economic interests. The core of this new federal ideology was a belief that multiple independent levels of government could legitimately exist within a single polity, and that such an arrangement was not a defect to be lamented but a virtue to be celebrated. By the early national period, federalism had become a theory of multiplicity - overlapping layers of government in which the goal was the overlap itself.

    Like judicial review - another "meta-constitutional" value - federalism's origins are typically traced to the drafting of the Constitution, despite the lack of any explicit reference to either concept in the document itself. To be sure, a set of ideas about government that would later be called "federalism" began to coalesce at the Constitutional Convention, conjured into action by the exigencies of a fraying confederation and the combined force of fifty-five creative minds. The product of these imperatives was not only a constitutional doctrine but rather an entire philosophy of government.

    Indeed, in the late eighteenth century, the new federal ideology rapidly became identified with the fledgling nation itself. More than a mere doctrine, the belief in multiplicity, overlap, and concurrence became a foundational principle of the American political enterprise. "Federal" and "republic" were the nation's twin attributes, terms so resonant that they were obvious choices for the names of the country's first political parties. From its origins in a disconnected set of pre-Revolutionary arguments about the relative powers of Parliament and the colonial legislatures to regulate colonial affairs, the federal conception of divided authority became necessary to the republic itself.

  • May 20, 2010
    The number of states joining or mounting legal challenges to the recently enacted health care reform law continues to grow. In its lead editorial today, The New York Times knocks many of state officials' motives as politically motivated and the lawsuit as legally weak.

    The Times' editorial maintains:

    Not surprising, many of the officials behind these suits are running for re-election or higher office. The lead plaintiff, Florida's attorney general, Bill McCollum, is seeking the Republican nomination for governor. His campaign Web site urges voters to tell Washington that ‘expensive big-government health care is a violation of our nation's Constitution and we won't stand for it.'

    The states' lawsuit, as the editorial notes, maintains that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to require individuals to obtain health care insurance.

    The editorial concludes:

    We believe the reform law has been carefully framed to stay within constitutional bounds. We are certain it will contribute to the nation's overall welfare by covering tens of millions of uninsured Americans and taking steps to improve the quality and lower the cost of medical care. We hope these suits stumble over procedural hurdles. If they go forward the courts should rule against the states and allow the reforms to proceed.

    See here for more analysis of the states' legal challenges to the health care reform law.

     

  • May 6, 2010
    BookTalk
    The Law of American State Constitutions
    By: 
    Robert F. Williams

    By Robert F. Williams, Distinguished Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law at Camden & Associate Director, Center for State Constitutional Studies

    In recent years, state constitutions have become the focal point of controversies over same-sex marriage, eminent domain reform, resistance to health care reform, gun control, free speech on private property, equal education funding, school vouchers, recall of elected officials and many other important matters of public policy. State constitutional law is now here to stay as an integral feature of American constitutional law. "The Law of American State Constitutions" is intended to provide lawyers, judges, government officials, scholars and students with a handy and readable reference tool for the study of, and participation in this growing arena.

    When talking about state constitutions, it is often difficult to generalize. Many will feel a familiarity with some state constitutions because of similarities with the federal Constitution. But there are many differences, as well. State constitutions perform different functions (generally limit plenary powers rather than grant enumerated powers), have different origins (from the people themselves), and have a different (longer) form. The content and quality of state constitutions is also very different, with state constitutions containing many more policy-oriented provisions, built up over time, as well as provisions concerning the character, virtue and even morality of the state's people. The differences can obscure one of the most fundamental aspects of state constitutions: the significant impact that a number of them adopted before the federal Constitution, had on our national legal charter.