Constitution and Government Foundations - AP Government and Politics

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 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.

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.

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 correct definition for "Sovereignty" is supreme and independent political authority. "Bicameralism" is the separation of the national legislature into two houses. The separation of powers is when the national government is separated into three different branches--the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches. "Federalism" is the division of powers and functions between the 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.

Under the doctrine of expressed powers and the 10 Amendment, powers not explicitly granted to the national government by the Constitution are reserved to the state governments. Powers not granted to the Federal government under the Constitution or reserved to the states are left to the people under the 9th amendment. Popular sovereignty is the ability of the people to rule in their own right. The US has limited popular sovereignty through state referendums. Most powers or authorities that aren't granted to the Federal government are left to the state governments. Powers that are shared by both the people and the Federal government are called concurrent powers.

This question asks for the definition of police powers. Police powers are powers to regulate health, safety, and wellbeing of citizens. These powers were reserved to the state governments under the Constitution. Executive power is power only exercised by the president in the US or a governor of a state. The legislative power are powers exercised by Congress or a state legislature to write legislation. The judicial power are powers exercised by judges or courts to interpret the law and decide cases. The sovereign power could mean a few things, but most generally it refers to all government's authority to rule, which would encompass police powers as well as all the other things government does.

According to statism, the rights of the individual are secondary to the rights and protection of the nation as a whole. Although the supreme right of the individual is supposed to be an established and guaranteed theory behind the formation of American politics and government, statism has taken on increased importance in recent years.

Under the period of Dual Federalism (1789-1937), state governments retained most of the political authority in the United States. The Federal government's authority was relatively narrow and only applied to those powers explicitly granted to it by the Constitution. After 1937 until the 1960s, the US entered into a period called cooperative federalism where the federal government's power to regulate the economy grew while state powers generally decreased. From 1960 to 1980s, the US entered in a period called regulated federalism where the Federal government began to use its power to force the states to comply with its directives. The Federal government became more powerful than the state governments after 1937. Before 1937, the states generally possessed more authority in domestic affairs than the federal government.

Dual Federalism ended for a variety of related reasons. The only one that isn't true is state governments began to delegate their authority to the federal government. All of the other reasons help explain why Dual Federalism came to an end in the late 1930s. President Franklin Roosevelt and large Democrat majorities in Congress passed a program of laws regulating the American economy called the New Deal which allowed the Federal government to regulate state governments in order to improve the economy. But the president needed the Supreme Court to support his interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court initially resisted the New Deal and overturned some of it as unconstitutional. After 1937, however, the Court began to support New Deal legislation and the government's increased regulations ending dual federalism once and for all. Congress also contributed to the end of dual federalism by vigorously using the “necessary and proper” clause to expand the number of implied powers. Congress used its implied powers to regulate the economy and justify the president's New Deal program.

After the end of Dual Federalism in 1937, the Federal Government continued to expand its authority by relying on grants-in-aid money to the states to encourage state governments to comply with federal standards and programs. From 1937 to the 1960s, the US entered a period called cooperative federalism, where the Federal government would pass laws requiring the state governments to act, but the Federal government would pay any costs on the states. These payments to the states are called grants-in-aid. After the 1960s, the US entered a period called regulated federalism where the Federal government continued to impose regulations or other requirements on the state governments, but it failed to pay the costs that the states incurred by complying. Instead, the Federal government would fine or penalize states who did not comply with Federal rules and regulations. The Federal government almost never supported local politicians in state elections that would advance federal policy goals once in state office. The president sometimes used the Mass media to pressure state governments but this isn't widespread and it occurred a bit later over issues like civil rights.

When the Federal government imposes a national standard on the state governments without paying the costs for states to adhere to the standard, the federal government imposes an unfunded mandate on the states. Grants-in-aid refers to money that the Federal government pays to the state governments in order to help they comply with Federal rules and regulations. Formula grants are grants where the government uses a precise mathematical formula to determine how much to give to recipients. Ex post facto grants are not a real thing; it is a nonsense answer.

Charles de Montesquieu was a French, Enlightenment-era philosopher who greatly influenced the Constitutional Framers and the nature of the Constitution itself. In his The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu advocated for the separation of power into three branches of government, in order to prevent a democracy from descending into an autocracy or a monarchy.