Chapter Three Section 3 Federalism. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 2 Sovereign Immunity Chisolm v. Georgia (1793) NO sovereign

Chapter Three

Section 3

Federalism

Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 3 | 2

Sovereign Immunity

• Chisolm v. Georgia (1793) NO sovereign immunity in Constitution

• 11th Amendment (1794)


11th Amendment

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any

suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign

State.


Sovereign Immunity

• Hans v. Louisiana (1890) federal courts may stop state officials from violating federal law

• Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976) citizens may sue their own state for anything entitled to under federal law.


Sovereign ImmunitySupreme Court has recently strengthened

the Eleventh Amendment

• Alden v. Maine (1999), compliance with federal fair labor laws

• Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina Ports Authority (2002), states did not agree to become mere appendages of national government and the Federal government cannot force the consent of the states to be sued in equity


Municipalities

• Cities, towns, counties, and districts have no Constitutional protections. They exist at the pleasure of the state government.– Municipal Corporations

• Dillon’s Rule: Express, Implied, or Essential– General Act Charter– Special Act Charter

• Home-Rule Charter


Grants• Began as Land Grants for schools,

roads, other infrastructure• In 1808, direct money given to states

to pay militia• A way around strict interpretation:

Congress could not spend money on anything not specifically authorized by the Constitution

• Expanded such that now 20% of state money comes directly from the Federal Government


Grants in Aid

•Grants were attractive to state officials for various reasons–Federal government was wealthier

–Federal government could print money, sell bonds

–Federal money was ‘free’ money


Meeting National Needs

• 1960s shift

– state and local governments had become dependent on federal funds (20% of funding)

– Federal legislators moved funds from what states demanded to what they considered important as national needs


Figure 3.2: The Changing Purpose of Federal Grants to State and Local Governments

Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2005, table 12.2.


Figure 3.3: Federal Grants to State and Local Governments, 1984-2004

Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2002, Historical Tables, table 6.1, and Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2005, table 12.1.


Federal Aid and Federal Control

•Categorical grants •Mandates•Block Grants•Revenue Sharing



• Categorical grants for specific purposes defined by federal law; often require local matching funds (90/10)– Conditions of aid: tell state

governments what they must do if they wish to receive grant money



• Mandates: federal rules that states or localities must obey, generally have little or nothing to do with federal aid– Environmental– Civil Rights (Voting Rights Act, ADA)

• Race, religion, gender, origin, disability

– Educational? (NCLB)• Legislative or Judicial

• Recent court cases have limited mandates


Grants in AidRequired broad congressional coalitions

with wide dispersion of funds, because every state had incentive to seek grant money

• Leads to – Special Interest Effect– Intergovernmental Lobbying– Pork barrel spending

• earmarks

– Log rolling


Intergovernmental Lobbying• State and local officials lobby in DC:

• The Big 7– U.S. Conference of Mayors – National Governors Association– National Association of Counties – National League of Cities – Council of State Governments – International City/County Management Association – National Conference of State Legislatures

• Purpose: to get more federal money with fewer strings


Richard Nixon1968-1974

• “Impounding Funds”– used by Jefferson

• Unconstitutional– Train v. City of New

York, 1975– Equivalent to Line

Item Veto violates Article I, section 7 and 8


Ronald Reagan1980-1988

•The New Federalism

•Deregulation•Devolution•Block Grants•Revenue Sharing


Devolution• Devolution initiatives returned program management

to the states, with some federal guidelines, but there is no guarantee of federal support

• Devolution proponents harbor a deep-seated ideological mistrust of federal government and believe that state governments are more responsive to the people

• Deficit politics encouraged devolution• Devolution is supported by public opinion, but

the strength of that support is uncertain


Block Grants and Revenue Sharing

• Block grants (sometimes called special revenue sharing or broad-based aid) devoted to general purposes with few restrictions—states preferred block to categorical grants– Operational, Capital, and Entitlement– Cities (CDBG), Law Enforcement (LEAA), Social

Programs (CETA): Unemployment and Welfare (AFDC)

• Revenue sharing (GRS) requires no matching funds and can be spent on almost any governmental purpose. – Determined by statistical formula


Bill Clinton1992-2000

• Gradual elimination of Revenue Sharing

• Freeze on Block Grants

• Increase in Categorical Grants

• Line Item Veto (failed)


George W. Bush2000-2008

• Attempt to increase Block Grants

• Substantial increase in earmarks– 55,000 worth $100

billion– But make up less up

less than 1% of the federal budget


Congress and Federalism

• Members of Congress represent conflicting constituencies

• The erosion of parties increases political competition

• Americans differ in the extent to which we like federal versus local decisions

Documents

Chapter Three Section 3 Federalism. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 2 Sovereign Immunity Chisolm v. Georgia (1793) NO sovereign