Relationship to Federal & State Government
Learning Outcomes • To understand the constitutional basis of federalism and the powers of the federal and state governments • To explain the. NCSL Executive Director William T. Pound assesses the current state-federal relationship. government and is constantly evolving into new relationships between states Fiscal shortfalls and constitutional requirements for balanced budgets. Second, it divides power between the federal government and the states. The Constitution also limits the powers of the states in relation to one another.
In these cases, state and local law enforcement normally would not make arrests on these crimes. Federal law enforcement still could, however, under the federal laws. But the executive branch of the federal government could decide and, in this case, has decided to not do this.
Thus, it's still technically illegal in the entire U. The federal government could, however, decide to resume enforcing these laws any time it wanted to and the states would have little-to-no recourse to stop it from doing so, other than attempting to argue in court that federal drug laws aren't authorized under the Constitution in the first place.
This would be a difficult case for the state to win in the current legal environment of broad interpretations of the Commerce Clause. Additionally, if a state law and a local law conflict, it is also usually the case that the state law will preempt the local one. Unlike the federal government, state governments are not constrained to the powers enumerated in the federal constitution. In general, the only way for a local law which contradicts a state law to stand in a challenge would be for the state law to be struck down, such as if it violated some provision of the federal constitution or of that state's constitution.
Otherwise, the state law will preempt the local law. Who decides if they really conflict? If a state law or local law is thought to be in violation of a federal law or the federal Constitution, it can be challenged in court as such by someone who is deemed by the court to have standing to bring the case.
The courts will then rule whether or not the state law violates the federal law and, if it does, the courts will strike down the state law. If the parties still disagree, they can appeal the decision to higher appeals courts, possibly all the way up to the U. On the flip side, if the federal government creates a law that is thought to exceed its enumerated powers, someone with standing can challenge it in court.
If the courts rule the federal law exceeds the power of the federal government, the federal law will be struck down.
Again, one or more states could potentially themselves be the party with standing to bring the suit here. And again, rulings can be appealed through appellate courts, potentially up to the U.
The relationship between the states and the federal government
Supreme Court has ruled on a matter of U. Constitutional law, the only ways to change it are either for the Supreme Court to overturn their decision in a later ruling on a different case or for the U. Constitution to be amended, according to the process set out in Article V.The Constitution, the Articles, and Federalism: Crash Course US History #8
If a state law is more restrictive than a federal law, but does not contradict the federal law, then the more restrictive state law applies and the same goes for local laws. In the particular mentioned example of federal vs. Is the Division of Powers Settled or Controversial?
Some parts are very unambiguous and settled for example, no states are going to be coining money or declaring war any time soon, but others remain quite controversial. In general, those who follow an originalist philosophy of legal interpretation tend to view the legal role of the federal government in a more limited manner than those who do not.
Conservatives and, especially, libertarians tend to favor originalism, while liberals tend to favor loose constructionism. As a result, conservatives and libertarians typically take a more narrow view of the legal powers of the federal government than do liberals.
The Commerce Clause One of the largest points of contention is, as previously alluded to, the meaning of the Commerce Clause. Loose constructionists mostly liberals tend to view the powers granted to the federal government by the commerce clause much more broadly than do originalists mostly conservatives and libertarians.
The United States Constitution
Federalism is, by its nature, a system of dynamic tension between levels of government and is constantly evolving into new relationships between states and the nation. The American constitutional division of authority between nation and state has been emulated by many other countries sincebut in few as successfully as it has developed in the United States.
Before the Civil War, states generally dominated American federalism. But a stronger national government emerged after the war and grew with the advent of the income tax, World Wars I and II, and the Great Depression. A reinvigoration of state government began in the s, however, with the formation of The Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations to strengthen federal-state-local relationships.
The last 30 years have been a period of more balanced federalism. Creative environment and energy legislation, novel education reform and inventive health policy all flowed from the states. The current economic recession, which began in Decemberis one of the greatest challenges to healthy federalism and to the ability of states to carry out their role as partners in the federal system.
Fiscal shortfalls and constitutional requirements for balanced budgets restrain the capacity of the states to maintain their traditional priorities in K and higher education, transportation and health care. At the same time, the ability of the federal government to deficit spend, particularly as a counter to recession, allows it to expand its initiatives and, if it desires, direct states to act in particular ways at a time when it is very difficult for them to resist.
The Obama administration has expanded the use of the carrot in federal financial assistance to achieve its goals, particularly in education with the Race to the Top competition for funds.
The relationship between the states and the federal government (article) | Khan Academy
State and local governments still provide more than 90 percent of K education funding, but the federal government has found an effective means of nationalizing goals through its much smaller share of the funding. Pushback has begun, however, with a number of states opting not to participate. Whether this is a temporary change in the state-federal relationship or a more permanent one remains to be seen. There certainly has been a growth in the percentage of federal funds in state budgets over the last 50 years, with Medicaid the big ticket item.
Medicaid is now the primary vehicle for the expansion of health care to the uninsured. It currently accounts for 21 percent of state budgets and grows by the year. Under the vast new federal health reform, conflicts over the regulation of insurers, the operations of the exchange programs and risk pool funding are unavoidable.