Relatively straightforward question here, as long as you remember the Constitution. While setting a voting age might seem like something Congress has the power to do, they don’t. If you’re still unsure about that, check out the 26th Amendment. Note that an Amendment had to be passed to set the voting age at a ceiling of 18—it can technically be lower, if a state (or states) desired, but it can be no higher.

In 1819, the Supreme Court, in relation to the creation of a national bank, ruled that the Federal government had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper clause.

Many state and local governments adopted the practice of initiative and referendum during the progressive era of American politics. This allows citizens to vote directly on propositions or initiate propositions of their own.

This is a tough question. It’s likely that your kneejerk reaction was “true . . . duh.” Some advice—never kneejerk! Always think thoroughly prior to answering, no matter how simple you may think the question. In this case, if you took a few seconds to say the Pledge of Allegiance, you’d realize the correct answer, which is “republic,” thus making this answer “false.” The US, technically speaking, is a republic. Political scientists have regrettably muddied the word by using “indirect/representative democracy” and “republic” interchangeably. In our republic, we the people do not vote on laws (with some small exceptions); we elect representatives who then vote on laws on our behalf.

Federalism divides power between national and state levels of government, with national government supreme. A confederation divides power between state and national with the states as supreme. A unitary system has just one level of government.

Federalism creates many levels (national, state, and local) of government given people many more access points to try and influence government.

It is indeed true that in the US, the majority of public policy disputes (such as over healthcare or the economy) revolve around federalism. Because the federalist system dictates that some powers are shared or otherwise connected at both the national and state levels, any conflict over policy innately involves a disagreement over the proper use of federalism. In other words, if there in a debate concerning healthcare distribution to seniors, for example, the debate naturally will call into question certain federalist principles – should the states or the national government manage healthcare for the elderly? Which level gets to set up standards for this healthcare and provide direct service? Which level will furnish the funding and facilities? Federalism also increases the power of the judiciary, as federal judges must necessarily play an important role as arbiter of conflicts between the central and state governments. Furthermore, American political developments are decentralized under the federalist system – voters cast their ballots for both the President and various leaders within their own states (such as Senators and governors). Government policies are also decentralized in a similar manner, as the states and the national government fight for dominance, ownership, or the primary definition of various policies.

Over the course of the nation’s history, a few key events have worked together to allow the federal government to establish and preserve its dominance over state and local governments. The first such instance occurred in 1819, with the Supreme Court’s ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled (among other principles) that the Constitution granted the national government implied powers – aka other powers that, while not expressly enumerated in the document, were nevertheless heavily implied. The doctrine of implied powers, according to the justices, can be found in the Elastic Clause (or the Necessary and Proper Clause), which permits the Congress to pass any legislation “necessary and proper” for the use of its enumerated powers. The Supreme Court once again proved influential in upholding national supremacy when it came to the Court’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Concerning the 1824 case of Gibbons v. Ogden, the Court concluded that the Commerce Clause (contained in Article I) allowed Congress to regulate interstate commerce. On the basis of this Clause, the Court further found that the legal definition of commerce included any and all commercial activities, and the national government was therefore given the ability to step in and manage almost any transaction that crossed one or more state lines. This trend towards national supremacy was further compounded by the Civil War and the long battle for civil rights – in both cases, the federal government intervened (sometimes militarily or judicially) to decisively settle important questions between itself and various states.

The United States national and state governments primarily operate according to the dictates of cooperative federalism, in which powers and plans are shared amongst the federal government and all the various states. Under cooperative federalism, the lines between national and state responsibilities are blurred in many policy areas, with both levels of government working together to create, institute, and enforce policies. In this manner, the federal and state governments act as partners, sharing burdens, exchanging ideas, and generating funding. For the vast majority of its entire history, the United States has employed cooperative federalism; it came close to deviating from this model only once, under the Articles of Confederation. Due to their weak structure and vague definitions, the Articles were more aligned in keeping with dual federalism, which sharply divides national and state governments. Under dual federalism, the respective states and national government rarely cooperate, instead remaining dominant within their own clearly delineated policy areas. This model was quickly abandoned, as were the Articles themselves, in favor of the Constitution and its cooperative federalist principles.

In today’s America, cooperative federalism rests upon a relatively broad judicial interpretation of the powers bestowed by the Constitution upon the national government, which allows for wide-ranging delegation and cooperation between the federal and state levels. Cooperative federalism is further supported by nationally-created rules and restrictions that govern the many federal grants that allow the states to implement goals and projects that are desired by both governmental levels. For example, a federal grant for the construction of a new highway in Ohio often comes with attached rules concerning a mandatory seat-belt policy for all drivers, which the state must enforce as per the national government’s wishes. Similarly, cost sharing is another central feature of cooperative federalism. By pooling together their funds, the state and national governments have the largest possible war chest to institute, support, and maintain their shared policy aims. The construction of a highway occurs much more swiftly when both the federal and state governments, with their combined money, are able to hire more workers and purchase more materials. Of course, such cost sharing necessitates dual administration as well; often, the state and federal governments divide duties up amongst themselves, with each level assuming responsibility for those tasks that are best justified by their respective Constitutionally-given powers.