Devolution/New Federalism About Devolution

Devolution/New Federalism About Devolution

Devolution/New Federalism About Devolution Devolution, also known as New Federalism, is the transfer of certain powers from the United States federal government back to the states. It started under Ronald Reagan over concerns that the federal government had too much power (as is seen during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” program and Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” program). Reagan Revolution (1981-1989) ● “New Federalism” evolved after the election of Republican President Ronald Reagan, in which he promised to return power to the states in an effort to even out the balance of strength between the national and state governments. ● Replaced the general revenue sharing with block grants as the primary funding for states. ● Introduced his Economic Policy Goals: Reaganomics, which focused on federal spending, taxation, regulation, and inflation. ● These economic reliefs gave more power to the states by lessening their reliance on the federal government. Bill Clinton’s Presidency (1993-2001) ● Bill Clinton was the first Democratic president in 12 years. Despite this, Clinton largely campaigned against a strong federal government due to the large Republican house majority during his presidency and Newt Gingrich’s priority of “New Federalism.” ● Passed the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 gave states a larger say in federal spendings. ● Passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Economic Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (later replaced by the TANF), which gave state governments control over welfare. Policies Block Grants - Prominent type of grant given to states by the federal government during and after the Reagan Administration. The federal government gives money to the state governments with only general provisions on how it is to be spent (“flexible funding”). This gave power over certain government programs to states through letting states decide which programs to fund and which programs to discontinue. This type of grant was made to replace the earlier “categorical” grants, which gave grants to states that could only be spent strictly for specific purposes. Examples: Social Services Block Grant Program - allowed states and territories to tailor social service programming to their population’s needs. Community Development Block Grant Program - allowed states to award grants to local governments to develop and preserve decent affordable housing, provide services to the most vulnerable communities, create, and retain jobs. Policies Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 - Unfunded mandates were mandates that the the federal government would implement on state and local governments without providing the necessary funding to enact the laws. This unfairly forced state and local governments to cut down on other programs to pay for programs that may not have been supported. The act’s aim was to limit the number of unfunded federal mandates imposed by the federal government on state and local governments. Now, federal mandates must give a reason for the mandate, a cost-benefit analysis, and propose effects of the mandate. National Highway System Designation Act (1995 - Clinton) - The federal government gave states money to partially control highways (such as choosing a maximum speed limit) and enforce safety standards on highways (such as motorcycle helmet laws). The states were reimbursed with 5.4 billion dollars of federal funds for state highway sectors. Policies The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 - It was based on repealing the prior social security policy known then as the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) and to replace it with a new program, TANF (Temporary Aid for Needy Families), which was designed with the purpose of promoting family stability, assist adults in the workforce, and allow states flexibility to design public assistance programs. In doing so, the act managed to offer benefits to people based off of work requirements. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families - This program revolved around state’s responsibility to ensure the well-being of its citizens. In exchange for certain funds, states would have to have to engage an x% of families and distribute and allocate the funds given locally. Ever since its enactment, TANF has been successful in moving people of welfare programs with enrollment dropping over 3 million between 1997 and 2006. Policies Compassionate Use Act 1996 - The Compassionate Use Act, California Proposition 215, is a Californian law that allows seriously ill Californians to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes when deemed appropriate and recommended by a physician. The physician must determine that the person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana. The law ensured that states would decide on drug use (for medical reasons) such as marijuana. “No Child Left Behind” Act 2001 - This act’s goal was to increase state responsibility toward education, and also improve education for disadvantaged children. It increased accountability for schools and school districts in states to improve schools, improve student performance, and ensure that each child had a proper education. States were required to administer their own standardized federal tests and make their own school curriculums. 27th Amendment “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.” What this means is that an election would have to occur in order for Congress to raise its salaries. This was proposed originally by Madison because it he didn’t Congress to abuse this new power at the time but he didn’t want the other branches of government to have control either. Interestingly enough, this amendment was proposed back during the constitutional conventions in Philadelphia in 1789 but was never brought up until its ratification in 1982, which was started by a student at UT because there was no time limit between proposal and ratification. ● United States vs Lopez Court Cases ● McDonald vs Chicago ● Shaw vs Reno ● Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission ● Garcia vs San Antonio Transportation ● United States v Morrison(2000) United States vs. Lopez (1995) Alfonzo Lopez, a senior in high school, knowingly brought a gun into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises, but the state charges are later dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act forbids “any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows… is a school zone.” Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and two years’ supervised release, but Lopez appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that this was law was an overreach of congressional power because schools were supposed to be controlled at the state level. Not the federal level. The court agreed with him and overturned the conviction. Lopez’s argument was that he should not be charged with violating a federal law since schools were under state jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction, so Congress did not have the right to pass the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 in the first place. The federal government argued that the law was within Congress’s power as it fell under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate trade with other countries and between states. The Supreme Court determined that the possession of a gun in a school zone was not an economic activity. Therefore, the 1990 Gun-Free Zones Act did violate the constitution as it infringed on states powers. McDonald vs. Chicago (2010) Otis McDonald and others challenged a Chicago ordinance that, among other things, generally banned the registration of handguns and made registration a prerequisite of possession of a firearm. McDonald, a 76 year old African American custodian, felt that he needed a handgun for purposes of self-defense. Following up on the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008), which held that that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment, McDonald sought to expand the Second Amendment’s application to state and local governments through selective incorporation. McDonald also offered the novel argument that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause should be allowed to apply the Bill Of Rights to state and local governments, overturning the Court’s 1873 decision in the Slaughterhouse Case. If the Court sides with McDonald, it may reverse the Slaughterhouse line of cases and incorporate the Second Amendment and possibly the entire Bill of Rights against the States. On the other hand, if the Court sides with the city of Chicago, it will uphold the Slaughterhouse cases and restrict the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result of the McDonald case, states are not permitted to ban guns but could limit the use of handling a gun. Shaw vs. Reno (1993) North Carolina residents’ claimed that the State created a racially gerrymandered district which goes against the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Case. After 1990, North Carolina redrew it’s districts to account for changes in their population. Only one district was a “Majority-Minority” district (District with more minorities than white votes). Because of this, North Carolina was required to form another “Majority-Minority” district to comply with the recent Voting Rights Act. After the new district was formed, a group of white voters led by Ruth O. Shaw sued stating that the the district was a unconstitutional gerrymander. In a 5-4 court decision, It was determined that the district’s bizarre shape could only be separated by race. While district plans may take racial considerations into account, race cannot be a predominant factor in drawing districts. Citizens united vs. Federal Election Commission (2010) This court case began when Citizens United, a non profit political organization, released the movie Hillary: The Movie. The movie was essentially a political move to berate Hillary Clinton, questioning and giving an opinion on whether or not Hillary would be a good president.

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    20 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us