Increasingly, cooperative federalism in the United States has taken on a new sub-dimension: devolution. Devolution is the delegation of policy responsibilities and duties from the federal to the state governments. This trend first gained popularity under the Republican administration of President Ronald Reagan, who advocated devolution as a way to detract from the national government’s powers by handing over controls to the states – controls that the Republicans believed the states had originally wielded but that had been usurped by the federal government. Reagan praised devolution as the ideal method for achieving true separation of powers amongst the nation’s levels of government; he believed that this separation had been eroded over the years. While some of the Reagan administration’s devolutionary measures have since been repealed, for the most part, the American people have accepted devolution as a helpful practice, one that allows the states to manage those programs best suited to their abilities (such as crime management) while the national government handles the biggest tasks, including economic measures and food safety regulations.

It is hardly surprising that when the federal government wants to convince the states to adopt nationally-sponsored policies, in the vast majority of instances, the federal government uses its financial resources as its primary bargaining tool. In political/academic terms, such a tactic is known as fiscal federalism – aka the monetary practices conducted within the federalist system, which dictate the flow of funding from the national to the state governments. Most often, the federal government’s monetary influence over the states comes through the form of grants (funds gathered together and legislated by Congress for state distribution). These grants are enticing incentives for the states; rarely is a state government in the position to turn down extra money, regardless of whatever restrictions or strings the federal government may have attached to the grant in question. There are two types of grants most often doled out by the national government: categorical grants and block grants, each with their own set of rules, restrictions, benefits, and drawbacks.

In today’s world, most countries are organized according to a unitary governmental structure. In a unitary system, all power is concentrated within the central or national government, so that the various smaller governments (such as local or state or district governments) beneath them must operate entirely according to the central government’s wishes; the central government can overrule lesser governmental bodies at any time, for any reason, and the populace casts votes only for national officials. In contrast, the United States (and a few other scattered nations) are structured upon federalism – a system in which two or more levels of government exercise control over overlapping populations and must share power. Under federalism, a nation’s citizens vote in both national and state/local elections. As for confederations, the national government functions under strict limitations, while lesser governmental levels wield far more power. Although the United States was initially structured as a confederation, this model was quickly cast aside, and, today, confederations are mostly reserved as organizational methods best used to constitute international bodies (such as the United Nations).

The Privileges and Immunities provision (as per Article IV) requires that every state must grant most of the same privileges and immunities that it gives to its own citizens to any individuals from other states. For instance, a Colorado resident who is vacationing in New York City cannot be discriminated against by any state institutions, employees, and/or laws simply because of his or her out-of-state background; however, there are several exceptions to this provision (such as university tuition or concealed-carry gun permits) and the Supreme Court has yet to precisely state exactly what privileges and immunities are supposed to be guaranteed from state to state. Another example of a commitment owed from all states to all other states is contained in the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Also included in Article IV, this Clause ensures that all records, civil court rulings, and other public activities (such as divorces and child custody arrangements) are legally respected by every state, regardless of the state in which the record originated. As per this Clause, a Wisconsin couple that obtains a divorce and then moves to separate states is still considered to be legally divorced in their new states and hometowns.

The most common type of grant given by the federal government to the states is the categorical grant. Categorical grants are only permitted to be used for certain specified purposes and in clearly dictated ways; this level of embedded control explains the federal government’s frequent usage of this type of grant. In many cases, even when a state may dislike the restrictions attached to a specific categorical grant, it will accept the grant (and the attendant rules) nevertheless, as they are unwilling to refuse extra funds. There are two sub-types of categorical grants: first, there are project grants (which are given out on a competitive, meritorious basis) and secondly, there are formula grants (which are handed out in accordance with legislatively-defined formulas). Most formula grants are calculated in terms of population amount or average income level and the states do not apply for such grants but are instead simply approached by the federal administration. In contrast, block grants carry far fewer restrictions; these grants allow the states to spend the attached funds in whatever manner they please, so long as the money is spent legally and ethically. Unsurprisingly, states tend to be most in favor of block grants and often use these funds to promote community development and social services amongst their population.

The Supremacy Clause (Article IV, Paragraph 2) establishes that the Constitution and federal law override any state constitutions or laws, therefore state constitutions are not equal to the federal constitution. Although the Constitution does establish judicial review, it is not under the Supremacy Clause. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the president is the supreme ruler of the land.

There was much debate on the type of government that would be best for the United States. Many favored the ideas of John Locke and other philosophers but there was an overriding feeling that the new United States should have its own unique form of government. That raised the debate concerning power to govern and control of the government. Should it be a government controlled by the states, should it remain as it was under the Articles of Confederation, should it be a democracy or republic? There was no republic under the Articles of Confederation, nor was there a true federal government under the Articles of Confederation. The Federalists preferred a strong federal government based solely on the Constitution. That is why they were called the Federalists.

The questions asks for the definition of federalism. "Federalism" refers to the division of powers and authority between the state governments and the national government. "Bicameralism" is a concept concerning Congress or state legislatures. "Bicameralism" means that the legislature has two chambers. "Sovereignty" is incorrect because it means authority to rule. "Separation of powers" refers to the division of the national government into three branches--namely, the executive, the judicial, and the legislative. By contrast, "federalism" is about dividing authority between different levels of government--the federal or national government and the state governments.

The Framers of the American Constitution argued that both the state governments and the National government were sovereign within their separate spheres of responsibility granted by federalism. This is called dual sovereignty. Under the 10th Amendment and the doctrine of expressed powers, the Federal government is sovereign over all the authorities explicitly given to it by the Constitution, while the state governments remain sovereign over all other authorities not explicitly granted to the Federal government. The Framers argued that most government authority would be left or reserved to the state governments.

Taxation is a concurrent power because both the state governments and the national government have the power to tax. Concurrent powers are any powers that both the state and the federal governments possess. Taxation is not an implied power because under the Constitution, Congress is explicitly given the power to tax. Reserved powers are powers not explicitly given to Congress by the Constitution, but are left or reserved to the states. Since both Congress and the state governments can tax, this power is concurrent and not reserved solely to the state governments. An implied power is a power that is not explicitly given to Congress in the Constitution but is essential for Congress to possess in order for it to carry out one of its expressed powers.