Home Uncategorized Federal relations in the US

Uncategorized

Federal relations in the US

July 11, 2024

649

This article is written by Amandeep Kaur. The article attempts to provide a detailed explanation of various aspects of federal relations in the US with relevant case laws. It gives a detailed description of the form of state government and the relationship of states to each other and to the nation as a whole. It further elaborates on the Tenth Amendment’s constraints on Congress’s power, dual federalism, and the history of federalism in the US.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Federalism is a form of government in which power is divided between a central government and the component states of a country. The federal government is a system of government that includes a national government and at least one level of subnational government. The two forms of government enable each to make certain decisions independently of each other. However, every form of government, whether at the national level or at the state level, contends to achieve common goals. The powers and responsibilities are shared by each government. The United States is a federal system, meaning that the states and the federal government share power.

The federal form of government ensures safety and promotes the unity of the country, while accommodating regional diversity. All these aspects are necessary for the federal form of government. The form of governments practicing federalism must ensure that these objectives are met. The ideal federal system comprises both the aspects of mutual trust and agreement to abide by decisions of each other.

In this blog article, we will discuss the various aspects of federal relations in the US, including full faith and credit given to each state, citizens, new states, the government of the territory, form of state government, relationship of states to each other and to the nation as a whole, Tenth Amendment constraints on Congress’s power, dual federalism, and the history of federalism in the US.

Overview of federal relations in the US

Federalism is a form of government in which power is divided between a central government and the component states of a country. The United States follows a federal system, meaning that the states and the federal government share power. This arrangement has been in place since the nation was founded, and it has been an important factor in the nation’s development. The US Constitution outlines the division of powers between the federal government and the states and outlines the rights and responsibilities of each. Federalism is a way of ensuring that all citizens of the US have equal rights and protection while allowing each state to maintain some autonomy and represent the interests of its citizens.

The relationship between the states and the federal government is governed by the US Constitution. American federalism consists of the Union of states under a federal system of governance. The United States fought for its freedom before it had its current form of government. The form of government was called Confederation of States which included a group of states. The problems still persisted. Therefore, this system was replaced with a new Constitution which consisted of a federal government with both a national government and individual states. Disagreements about the power of states versus the federal government sparked heated debates and eventually led to the Civil War. At present, national governments coexist with the government of the states, with their own executive, legislative and judicial branches. Thus, this system laid the foundation of what is federalism today.

Origin and development of American federalism

Federalism in the US has changed over time as the nation has grown and changed. The early years of the nation saw a strong emphasis on dual federalism, with the states and the federal government having distinct and separate spheres of power. However, with the growth of the nation and the increasing complexity of the laws and regulations, the federal government began to take on more and more power. This has led to a shift away from dual federalism and towards a more centralized form of government.

It was on July 4, 1776, when 13 North American colonies proclaimed their independence from Great Britain and felt the need to collaborate to frame the Constitution. This led to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, under which a League of Sovereign States was established. It provided for the States to cooperate with each other in the fields of military and foreign policy. Federalism is neither mentioned nor defined in the United States Constitution. Federalism in the United States has a huge historical context. To determine from where this concept originated, we need to look back into the formation of thirteen separate states. The existence of these states precedes the existence of a national government. The concept arose for the first time in the failed Articles of Confederation, under which Article 2 stated that each state shall retain its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power that is not expressly specified by the confederation will be delegated to the Congress assembly.

In addition to this, Article 3 provided that the states shall enter into a firm league of friendship with each other for the common defense, security of liberties and mutual and general welfare, and this Article makes the states independent rather than uniting them. This resulted in the rejection of congressional authorities by the State governments. The concept of separation of powers and checks and balances did not appear in the text of the Constitution, but by stating this, it cannot be said that Federalism did not exist in American politics.

The advocates and architects of the American Constitution wanted the Constitution to guarantee the autonomy of states. The concept of “dual sovereignty” was advocated to be accepted. It involved that the national government shall rule over the areas mentioned in the Constitution, whereas the states shall take over the areas that have not been delegated to the national government.

Therefore, what came out as enactment was Article 1 of the US Constitution, which created a bicameral legislature comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives would be composed of members directly elected by the people of several states for a two-year term. The Senate shall consist of two senators from each state and these senators would be chosen from the legislature of the State. The President shall have the executive powers as per Article 2. Along with these, there shall be state governments that shall coexist with the national government, consisting of three bodies known as the executive, legislature and judiciary, respectively. These articles were not adequate enough to keep the states united and achieve a common national interest.

Evolution of American federalism

Federalism in the United States has gone through multiple phases. The relationships of national and federal governments have varied during these periods. Below we will discuss each phase in detail:

Pre-federalism period: 1775 to 1789

During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress declared independence and formed state governments to support the war. Articles of Confederation were drafted in 1777 under which the Congress outlined the powers of the central government, creating a state-centered league called the Articles of Confederation. Later on, the Articles of Confederation were approved in 1781 when the states ratified the Articles, granting Congress limited powers and leaving crucial issues unresolved. Economic issues and conflicts provided for a re-evaluation of these articles in 1786. Federalists like Madison and Hamilton called for a Constitutional Convention to address weaknesses. In 1787 a new Constitution was drafted by a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia expanding central government powers, creating three branches, and balancing representation. The Federalist Papers and the opposition argued for and against the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists later became the Democratic-Republican Party.

Dual federalism phase 1: 1789 to 1865

Dual federalism involves the distribution of powers among national and state governments. They each have their own spheres of authority, and there is limited collaboration between them. States ratified the Constitution, requiring approval from at least 9 states in 1789. This marked the beginning of the federal government’s authority. Federalists, led by figures like Washington and Hamilton, supported a strong central government. Anti-Federalists, like Jefferson, opposed this, favoring state-centered governance. The Bill of Rights in 1791 affirmed states’ rights and limited the national government. Hamilton pushed for a national bank, but Jefferson opposed it. The Bank controversy highlighted tensions over state sovereignty. The Bank was established in 1791 but not renewed in 1811. During the Alien and Sedition Acts, states like Kentucky and Virginia asserted the right to nullify federal laws they deemed unconstitutional. This doctrine called the Doctrine of Nullification in 1798 fueled debates on state-centered federalism. Further discussions were held on whether the national government could fund infrastructure projects without explicit constitutional authority. Later, on States Rights Doctrine (1815) was enacted which expressed New England’s economic grievances during the War of 1812, advocating for states’ rights to protect citizens against unconstitutional acts of Congress. McCulloch v. Maryland(1819) upheld the constitutionality of the Second Bank of the United States, citing implied powers and the necessary and proper clause. South Carolina’s Nullification Ordinance (1832) was passed which attempted to nullify federal tariff acts, emphasizing state sovereignty. In the case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania(1842), the Taney Court ruled that state laws protecting free blacks conflicted with the Fugitive Slave Act, asserting federal supremacy for testing the Constitution Supremacy in 1942. The Fugitive Slave Act heightened tensions, leading to conflicts over state nullification and federal supremacy. The Civil War in 1850 settled the nature of the union, favoring a nation-centered concept of federalism. Civil War in 1860 was a testament to Federalism as it resolved debates over federal power and the nature of the union, favoring a strong national government and rejecting the idea of states’ right to nullify or secede.

Dual federalism: part II (1865-1901)

During this period, the national government became more involved in areas that were traditionally handled by the states. Laws like the Sherman Antitrust Act(1890), Interstate Commerce Commission Act,(1887), and constitutional amendments pushed federal authority into business regulation and civil rights. The Industrial Revolution led to debates over Congress’s power to regulate commerce. Court cases, including Munn v. Illinois(1877) and Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Rail Road v. Illinois(1886), upheld Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce. The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses gained significance, restricting unfair business practices. However, the Supreme Court’s rulings in cases like Plessy v. Ferguson(1896) and Bradwell v. Illinois(1872) limited civil rights, reviving the doctrine of states’ rights.

Cooperative federalism (1901-1960)

This period focused on increased collaboration between different levels of government. The national income tax and the grant-in-aid system were introduced to address social and economic challenges. In 1910 President Theodore Roosevelt’s policy of New Nationalism sought to expand national government powers. Further in 1913, President Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom continued the trend toward active national cooperation.

There were certain important amendments during this period which involved the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 authorized income tax, and fueled the grant-in-aid system. The New Deal, led by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, expanded federal involvement to address the Great Depression. It marked a significant shift in federal-local relations. The Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (CIR) was created in 1953 to review federal aid to state and local governments and assess their fiscal capacity for various activities.

However, there were certain issues that still existed between the national and state governments under which civil rights and state rights were reconsidered. In the case of Brown v. Board of Education(1954), the court struck down racial segregation in schools, challenging the doctrine of “separate but equal”. This prompted resistance from states, asserting states’ rights. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) was established in 1959 by Congress as a continuous body to monitor intergovernmental relations and recommend improvements in American federalism.

Creative federalism (1960-1968)

President Johnson introduced Creative Federalism, focusing on expanding the national government’s role. The Great Society program aimed to address social issues like poverty and hunger. In Baker v. Carr(1962), the Supreme Court forced states to redraw legislative districts based on population, ensuring equal representation. This decision influenced future political practices. The Great Society used Creative Federalism to achieve social goals. Federal involvement justified national purposes, using states as intermediaries. Regulations increased as the national government stepped into areas traditionally managed by states and local governments.

Contemporary federalism (1970-1997)

This can be called the era of new federalism during the 1970s. There were concerns about the intergovernmental grant system which led the Congress to redirect power relations. Revenue sharing and consolidating aid programs aimed to empower states and local governments, sparking debates on their roles. During this period there were legal conflicts. In the case of National League of Cities v. Usury(1976) the Burger Court addressed conflicts between the Tenth Amendment and the commerce clause. It ruled against federal regulations on state and local public employees, protecting state sovereignty. Then during the 1980s, Reagan’s administration sought to restructure governance fundamentally. Initiatives like the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, 1989 consolidated social programs into block grants, enhancing state and local autonomy. In the case of Garcia v. San Antonio,(1984), the Burger Court reversed the National League of Cities, limiting Tenth Amendment protection for state and local governments. The Court leaned toward legislative resolution of disputes.

The New Federalism period between (1992-1995) provided for Clinton’s efforts to invent government and the Contract with America aimed to devolve authority to lower levels. The debate focused on the government’s role, leading to regulatory reforms and discussions about federal programs. Thus in the 104th Congress (1995-1997), the Republican majority passed the Unfunded Federal Mandate Reform Act, 1995 and considered a balanced budget amendment. The Congress restructured rural development services, created new block grants, and addressed telecommunications regulations. The Supreme Court, in cases like New York v. United States(1992), and Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996), limited federal power, emphasizing state rights. ACIR was abolished in 1996 as it lost federal support, signaling a change in intergovernmental relations.

Federalism in the US Constitution

The Constitution of the USA is a fundamental law of the land and one of the landmark documents in the world. The Constitution provides for principal organs of the government and their jurisdictions. It also provides for the basic rights of its citizens. Below we will discuss the provisions of the US Constitution that enumerate the federal relations between the national and state governments.

Full Faith and Credit Given in Each State

The US Constitution includes a clause known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires each state to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of other states. This means that any court decision or law made in one state is considered valid in all other states. This clause helps ensure that the decisions of one state will be respected and enforced by other states, and it also helps to prevent states from discriminating against citizens from other states.

In order to understand the Full Faith and Credit Clause, one needs to have a look at the historical developments of this section. It was difficult for the courts to determine which handwritten document belonged to which state. Article IV of the Articles of Confederation was enacted in order to overcome this difficulty, which gave the states documents “Full Faith and Credit” elsewhere. The Articles of Confederation provided that the judgments of each colony must be allowed with greater force in other colonies, and to fulfill this criterion of the framers of the Constitution, a new clause was introduced. Further, another clause was inserted, which provided that the Congress shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved. The original Constitution focused on creating a federal government that defined its relationship to the states and people.

However, Article IV provides for a different concept, which is the relations of states with each other. Sometimes this concept can also be called “Horizontal Federalism”. The first part of this Article is borrowed from the Articles of Confederation and it requires each state to pay attention to the other state statutes, Acts, public records and court decisions. The second part provides for the methods by which Congress can prove these materials in Court. “Faith and Credit Clause” has two significant aspects:

It is no longer limited to courts and magistrates.
In addition to this, it empowers Congress to enact laws that would help enforce this recognition. However, with this aspect, there were certain fears that Congress could interfere in state matters.

Congressional legislation under Section 28 U.S.C. § 1738 establishes rules for authenticating state legislative acts, records, and judicial proceedings. These authenticated records must be given the same credit in federal courts as they have in the state where they originated. Regardless of this recognition, the state laws were unable to have extraterritorial application. The general principle where the case was heard prevailed in that particular state rather than the extraterritorial application.

The earliest case that invoked the principle of “Full Faith and Credit” was Mills v. Duryee (1813). When the case was brought to the Court of District Columbia on the judgment from New York, the defendant argued that since the case had already been taken up by the New York Court, full faith and credit must be given to the records, and the evidence need not be challenged here. The New York Court agreed to it on the view that the decision of one court should be accepted and respected in the other state when the case is reopened.

In another case, McElmoyle v. Cohen (1839), a question arose about the application of law in Georgia, which stated that certain judgments from courts outside Georgia couldn’t be enforced if enough time had lapsed. The issue was whether this law could be used to stop someone in Georgia from taking legal action on a judgment they got in a court in South Carolina. On one side, it was argued that a judgment from a court in one state should have all its powers and authority, which means full faith and credit must be given when brought into another state.

On the other side, it was argued that the Constitution didn’t want to change the important parts of the laws in each state. They said that the law passed by Congress only made a rule about evidence. To make a judgment from another state applicable in a new state, a new legal action had to be taken that follows the laws of that new state.

The US Supreme Court agreed with the second argument. They didn’t follow what was said in a previous case called Hampton v. McConnell (1818), where the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect in every other court in the US. This decision means that sometimes it’s argued that a state doesn’t have to allow certain types of judgments from other states to be enforced there. However, this idea hasn’t been consistently applied, and there are cases where courts have said that states can’t block certain judgments from being enforced. It’s a bit confusing because different cases have different outcomes.

The most significant case associated with the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” is Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, (1935), where it was held by the US Supreme Court that it would be difficult for the states to give effect to each other’s law at the same time when both the laws are in conflict with each other. In the cases of Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague (1981) and Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts (1985), it was held that either court could apply its own state law to the dispute. The court can make a decision on applying the law depending on its interests, and it would be neither arbitrary nor unfair. The implementation of this clause has seen much controversial application in family law because each state has different laws about marriage. Until now, same-sex marriages formulated in one state were not recognized in another state. So Congress tried to use the power under this clause by enacting the Defense of Marriage Act (1996)—1 U.S.C. § 7; 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. However, the Supreme Court outrightly rejected this Act in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).

To conclude, “Full Faith and Credit” under Article IV, Section 1, provides for the equal respect and enforcement of state laws. However, there have been situations where the legal decisions of one state have not been fully applied in the other states. There are certain issues with respect to this clause. When a court judgment from one state needs to be enforced in another state, the receiving state often requires a new legal action instead of simply recognizing the original judgment. This complicates the process and goes against the intended purpose of the clause. In addition, this clause finds its applicability in final judgements while ignoring the interim legal processes. Congress can make laws under this clause and even use this power to formulate certain standards that are implemented across multiple states. At present, Congress has enacted laws (Sections 905 and 906 of the Revised Statutes) to give recognition to state court decisions in all U.S. courts and not within individual states. These laws also cover territories and countries subject to U.S. jurisdiction. However, this is more related to Congress’s broader powers than specifically to the “Full Faith and Credit” clause.

Citizens, new states, and government of territory

Article 4 of the Constitution is related to the relations between states and the Union. Section 2 of the Article provides for the clauses that relate to the movement of persons throughout the union. It provides that citizens of each state shall enjoy the “privileges and immunities of citizens” in other states. According to this clause, if the citizens of one state are residing temporarily in the other state, either due to travel work or such other temporary purposes, they shall be entitled to equal treatment with local citizens. Thus, this clause prohibits any kind of discrimination on the basis of residence, and the states cannot discriminate against the citizens while guaranteeing certain fundamental rights such as the right to travel, residence, trade, employment or property. However, the states can discriminate against their own citizens on the grounds of political rights such as the right to vote and the right to hold office, as well as other recreational activities such as hunting and fishing.

There has always been a tense relationship between unity and multiplicity in the states, which involved citizens being united in thirteen independent states. This tension posed a serious challenge to the unity of the states in that these states would turn into separate republics rather than united. The Articles of Confederation had a provision to deal with such challenges, which would help to secure the mutual relationship and intercourse among the different states in the Union. It included that the inhabitants of the state will not be foreigners with respect to other states, but instead, they will be entitled to all the privileges and immunities as free citizens in several states.

It was argued that the privileges and immunities clause gives exclusive power to the Federal Government. This argument was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Slaughter House case,(1873). It provided that the privileges and immunities clause protects those rights that are derived from the United States Constitution and its laws and gives the least importance to the respective state laws, so the court upheld a Louisiana law that granted a monopoly on the slaughtering of livestock to a single company. Thus, this interpretation by the court limited the ability of the federal government to protect individual rights against state infringement. Later on, this clause was invoked in a number of cases.

In Colgate v. Harvey (1935), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state income tax that discriminated against nonresidents violated the privileges and immunities clause. In Hague v. CIO (1939), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the right to use public streets and parks for the dissemination of information and for peaceful assembly is a privilege of national citizenship, and it limits the power of states to regulate on such matters. And later on, in Edwards v. California (1941), the Supreme Court held that the right to interstate travel is a matter of the federal government. But in recent years, the Court has not relied on the privileges and immunities clause to strike down state laws. Therefore, this clause remains a potential source of protection of rights against state infringement and helps to promote national unity by ensuring that all citizens are treated equally, regardless of their state of residence.

The US Constitution also outlines the rights of citizens of the US, regardless of what state they live in. These rights include the right to move freely from state to state; the right to vote and hold office in any state; and the right to access public services and other benefits provided by the state in which they reside. The Constitution guarantees a number of fundamental rights to citizens, including the right to life, liberty, and property, the right to freedom of religion, the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of assembly. These rights are protected from infringement by the government. The Constitution grants certain powers to the federal government, such as the right to regulate interstate commerce and taxes. On the other hand, states are given certain powers, such as the right to control intrastate commerce and the right to provide health and welfare to their citizens. However, the relationship between the federal government and the states is a complex one. It has been subject to debate over the years. The Constitution provides for a system of dual sovereignty where the federal and state governments are guaranteed their respective powers.

The nature of the relationship between the union and the states has been interpreted multiple times by the courts in various case laws. In the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), it was held by the Supreme Court that certain exclusive powers can be exercised by the federal government that are not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), gave the power to the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. In the case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court overturned the doctrine of “separate but equal” and held that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. This case helped advance the cause of civil rights. In the landmark case of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court established the right of same-sex couples to marry, helped to advance the cause of LGBTQ+ rights, and held that same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions are unconstitutional.

Article 4, Section 3, of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, provides that the federal government can admit new states into the union, but it does not give the power to the states to create a new state within a state, nor with the consent of the State legislature nor with the congress. Congress will have the power to make rules and regulations related to land and property associated with the states. This clause is known as the “Admission Clause” or the “New States Clause”. However, the Congress is subject to two limitations while exercising this power. It provides that whenever a new state is created under the jurisdiction of the existing state or states, it is mandatory for the state legislatures to provide consent. When the state of Kentucky was created in 1792, Virginia’s consent was given to admit this state out of the western regions of Virginia. The framers of the Constitution contemplated that the new state could only be formed if the existing state gave consent to it. Another limitation that is imposed on Congress to admit or form a new state is known as the “Equal Footing Doctrine”. It provides that the new state must be admitted on equal terms, which means that Congress cannot impose any condition that diminishes the equal sovereignty of the states. Till now, 37 states have been admitted into the United States under the Admissions Clause. Thus, the states are subdivisions of the United States. Each state has its own Constitution with a republican form of government consisting of legislative, executive and judicial branches.

System of government in the US

Article 4, Section 4 provides for the Republican system of government. It states that the United States shall protect each state against the invasion. It shall also be the duty of the federal government to protect each state against invasion. Each state will also be protected in case of any riots occurring in it if the state legislature makes a request for it. Even to address such circumstances in the states, the Governor is given exclusive power if the state legislature is not meeting. Article 4, Section 4 is still a very important source of federal power.

The Congress is given significant powers under Section 4 to protect the citizens of the US. The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to intervene when states fail to uphold their duties, making sure that fundamental rights are preserved for all Americans. Every state has its own Constitution, which outlines the form of government that the state will use. The US Constitution outlines the basic principles of federalism, and each state constitution is free to deviate from these principles as long as it does not violate any of the provisions of the US Constitution. Most states have adopted a system of state government that is based on the principles of federalism, with power being divided between the state government and the local governments within the state.

Federal government

The Federal Government consists of three branches, which can be listed as follows:

Legislative
Executive
Judicial

The powers of the above institutions are vested by the US Constitution in the Congress, President and federal courts.

State government

All state governments consist of these branches and are modeled after the Federal Government. It is mandatory for the states to uphold a republican form of government, although it is not important to maintain a three-branch structure for the states.

Executive branch

The head of this branch is the Governor. He is directly elected by the people. The other leaders in the executive branch are the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the secretary of state, and auditors and commissioners, who are also directly elected by the people. It is left to states to determine the mode of election of these bodies.

Legislative branch

Every state has its own legislature, which consists of elected representatives. The main function of the legislature is to frame the law for the state. There are certain exclusive powers given to the state legislature, such as the enactment of the state’s budget, tax legislation and articles of impeachment. Except for the State of Nebraska, every state has a bicameral legislature that consists of two houses, the upper house and the lower house. Both of these chambers are responsible for making state laws. The upper chamber is called the Senate, with the members having terms of about four years. The lower chamber has more members and is called the House of Representatives, but in some states, it is called the Assembly or House of Delegates. The term of members of this house is generally small, which is two years.

Judicial branch

The framework of the judiciary involves the State Supreme Court, which is responsible for hearing the appeals of lower-level state courts. The legislature of the states or the State Constitution determines the structure and judicial appointments of the courts. The Supreme Court corrects the errors made by the lower courts, and the rulings of the Supreme Court are binding in nature. However, when the question relating to the interpretation of the US Constitution arises, such matters are appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the US.

Local government

The local government is a two-tier government. It is known by different names in different states such as it is known as counties and boroughs in Alaska and in Louisiana, it is known as parishes in some states, and also called municipalities, cities and towns. The structure of municipalities differs in each state. These municipalities are addressed in different states as townships, villages, boroughs, cities or towns. The division of Municipal government is made on the basis of population, which corresponds to the geographical locations used by the United States Census Bureau for reporting housing and population statistics. The size of these municipalities varies, with millions of residents in New York City and Los Angeles and a few hundred people in the city of Jenkis, Minnesota. The municipalities are responsible for parks and recreation services, police and fire departments, housing services, emergency medical services, municipal courts, transportation services (including public transportation), and public works (streets, sewers, snow removal, etc.). The Mayors of the city, city councils and governing bodies of these municipalities are directly elected by the people.

The Federal and State Governments are granted powers by the US Constitution, whereas the local government functions under the supervision of the respective State Governments.

Relationship of states to each other and to the nation as a whole

The relationship between the national government and the states has been at the heart of the study of federalism. The division of powers between the states and the national government has always been a matter of debate, and it has been argued that each of them has exceeded their authority. However, the US Constitution provides some guidance regarding their exclusive powers. There are some powers that are granted only to the national government and to the states, but there are certain powers that are shared by both and certain powers over which both cannot exercise their powers.

Guarantees to the states

There are certain constitutional provisions that guarantee the state’s protection from national abuse and neglect. Article1 Section 9, prohibits a national tax or any kind of duty on the exports of the state and bans the granting of preference to the ports of one state over the other. These provisions reflect the fears of state governments that national governments may interfere with state economies, so these provisions aid the state governments to be on equal terms with the national government with respect to their economic powers.

Article 4, Section 3, provides that no state can be divided or merged without the consent of the state legislature, and Article 5 provides that no state can be deprived of equal representation in the US Senate without the consent of the state legislature. Article IV, Section 4 guarantees every republican form of government protection against invasion and, on request from the state legislature or governor, domestic violence. However, the national government can act without a request from the state government if national laws are at stake. Also, the federal government is bound to interfere and regulate accordingly if there has been an invasion of the state government. The Second Amendment provides each state with a military to defend itself. The Eleventh Amendment guarantees each state immunity from lawsuits in federal courts that are brought up by the citizens of other states and foreign countries, except the state that consents to it. The federal courts have the power to hear the Second Amendment to the Constitution suits even without the state’s consent when the constitutional rights of any citizen are abridged.

Limitations on the states

The state’s actions are subjected to a number of restrictions under the Constitution. Article 1,Section10 provides that the states cannot enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation, levy duties on shipping entering or leaving state ports or navigating state waterways, maintain troops or warships in peacetime or engage in war unless invaded or threatened with invasion. However, the states are involved in a variety of programmes that involve international trade and investment. For example, the village of Glen Cove, New York, denied Soviet diplomats the use of the city for recreational facilities on the ground that the Soviet property in the community was tax-exempt. However, the states cannot do this without the consent of the national government. Thus, these provisions limit the states’ influence over international economic flows and also help the national government keep control over interstate commerce and encourage free trade among the states.

On the other hand, Article 1, Section 10 also provides certain restrictions on the national government. The states cannot enact ex post facto laws and cannot grant titles of nobility. There have been certain amendments to the Constitution that have limited the state’s authority. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, which was prohibited both by the national government and by the state government. The Fourteenth Amendment provided limitations on the state to not abridge any privileges or immunities of U.S. citizens, deprive them of life or property, or deny anyone equal protection of laws. The states or the national government cannot deny the right to vote to any citizen on the basis of race, color or previous condition of servitude.

Ambiguous provisions

There are several provisions of the Constitution that deal with national and state powers that are ambiguous, and these have been interpreted by the federal courts. Article 1, Section 8 provides that Congress shall have the power to levy and collect taxes, pay the debts and provide for the general welfare of the United States. It also provides that the national government is given the power to regulate commerce among the states. Now what includes commerce and what would amount to interstate commerce are interpreted by the federal courts. In the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), redressed the issue where the court interpreted that Congress had gone beyond its power when it imposed taxes on the people not to collect the revenue but imposing the taxes as a penalty.

Further, a clause called an “Elastic Clause(Article 1 Section 8)” provides that the national government shall be responsible for enacting every law that is necessary and proper for executing the powers. This provides that the national government’s powers are supreme. There have been efforts by the national government to protect the civil rights of blacks. The Tenth Amendment has been a further source that provides disagreements over the national-state allocation of powers. It provides that the powers that are neither with the national government nor with the states are to be reserved for the states or the people. Thus, the allocation of powers to the states and national government is unclear in many respects, so when there are such disagreements, there have been interpretations over time by the Supreme Court, states or the public.

The decisions of the Supreme Court

There have been numerous instances where the Supreme Court has resolved disputes regarding national and state governments. In the case law of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Supreme Court established a principle that the national power to regulate interstate commerce could extend to activities within the individual states only if those activities were a part of interstate transactions. Thus, this laid the foundation for the rule that interstate trade which concerns trade between the states will be subject to national control and intrastate, which concerns trade within the state will be a matter of state.

In the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court interpreted the “Necessary and Proper Clause”. This landmark decision gave the national governments more power to carry the constitutional responsibilities. The court was even criticized that it was inclined more towards the national government, as it held the national government as the “Umpire of the federal government”. It has been held that the court holds a pro-national bias. This could be seen in the interpretations of the court, where it struck down about thirty state laws and, on the other hand, only one national law till the 1860s.

The US Supreme Court has ruled on several cases that have had an impact on the relationship between the states and the nation as a whole. In the case of Somersett’s Case, (1772), the court ruled that a slave who had been brought to England from a British colony could not be held as a slave, as this violated English common law. This ruling had a significant impact on the relationship between the states and the nation as a whole, as it showed that the states were not exempt from the laws of the nation.

In the case of Lemmon v. The People (1860), the Court of Appeals of the State of New York ruled that a state could not impose its own laws on citizens of other states. This ruling was a major victory for federalism, as it showed that the states could not impose their own laws on citizens of other states and that the federal government had the power to protect citizens from the actions of other states.

The decisions of the states

The states are held to be the final arbitrators of the conflicts arising between the states and national governments. In Ableman v. Booth, (1859), a Wisconsin man was arrested for helping a fugitive slave escape. The man was released after the order of the Wisconsin Supreme Court which declared that the national Fugitive Slave Law was unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court overruled the decision of the state court and upheld the constitutionality of the Slavery Act, and later on Wisconsin state legislature in response to the above judgment of the case passed a resolution that declared the federal court action as null. A number of southern states even attempted to secede from the union as a result of tensions due to slavery. In the case law of Texas v. White (1869), it was held by the U.S. Supreme Court that the Constitution, in all its provisions, is an indestructible union, composed of indestructible states. Thus, the states have no right to secede from the union. There were certain state rights movements under which the states claimed that the rights of the states to conduct their affairs were more important than the constitutional rights of citizens. Therefore, if states were allowed to judge the validity of national government actions, it would create confusion. The historical record shows that whenever the states have denied the national laws, they are utilized primarily at the urging of groups that oppose the national policies. A proposal was designed in the 1960s that consisted of a Court of Union, which included the fifty state Supreme Court chief justices and had the power to review the decisions of the US Supreme Court. However, this body could not deliver the additional responsibilities as it would add another layer of the legal system to resolve cases and add further delays.

Therefore, the states retained their sovereignty, where they had the right to judge whether the national government was acting appropriately. This approach is a major component of state-centered federalism. In addition to overcoming these controversies, the Constitution provides for a House of Representatives, which is elected by the voters and ultimately derives authority from the people. Congress was given the power to make laws that apply directly to the people. Finally, Article IV of the Constitution provided that the laws made thereunder shall be the supreme law of the land. This ultimately provides that the supreme authority shall be with the people, and national government will be created by the people. Each state has equal voting power in the Senate, and irrespective of the state’s population, the senators are chosen by state legislatures and not the voters. Therefore, the states have equal involvement in the amendment of the Constitution, regardless of the population.

Principles for state-federal relations

The governors of the states believe that the federal government should only limit its powers to those allowed by the Constitution so that the healthy relationship between the states and the federal government can be maintained. The federal government must respect the state’s methods of resolving disputes. The federal government must avoid its interference in the issues to the states unless there is a national emergency. Federal rules should replace the state rules only in special cases and they must respect the state rules. The courts must be very careful while making the decisions. Both governments must work in coordination for the implementation of policies and plans. However, it must be understood that federal governments have a major role to play but still, some issues are better handled by states to ensure the benefit of people.

Tenth Amendment constraints on Congress’s power

The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. This amendment was included in the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government and to give the states more autonomy.

Scope and purpose

The Tenth Amendment was adopted to suggest a relationship between the national and state governments. The major reason behind the enactment of this amendment was the fear that the new national government might exercise powers that were not granted to them and that the states would not be able to exercise their fully reserved powers. However, this amendment was continuously invoked to limit powers that were granted to Congress, particularly the powers expressly granted to Congress to regulate commerce, enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, and collect taxes. In the case of McCulloch v. Maryland Chief Justice, John Marshall decided that the federal government had the power to create a national bank, even though this power was not explicitly stated in the Constitution. He based this decision on the “Necessary and Proper Clause” of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to pass laws that are “necessary and proper” for carrying out its enumerated powers. Marshall argued that the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers to be granted to the states that are not granted to the federal government, did not apply in this case because the power to create a national bank was not expressly prohibited to the states. He also noted that the Tenth Amendment did not use the word “expressly” when referring to granted powers, which suggested that the question of whether a particular power belonged to the federal government or the states should be decided based on a “fair construction of the whole instrument” of the Constitution.

Effect of provisions on federal powers

Effect on federal taxing power

It was believed that the Tenth Amendment protected states from federal taxes. This was overturned in the case of Collector v. Day (1870), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not tax the salaries of state officials. Justice Nelson stated that states have their own powers that are not granted to the federal government and that these powers are as important as the powers of the federal government. However, the issue of how to balance federal and state interests is still under debate. The Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States (1992) that the federal government could tax the sale of mineral waters taken from property owned by a state. The Court reasoned that the federal government’s taxing power would be too limited if states could avoid taxation by expanding their activities. However, two justices dissented, arguing that the Tenth Amendment protects states from federal taxes.

Effect on federal police power

In the case of Collector v. Day, the court held that a federal law that dealt with the sale of illuminating oils was invalid. However, the court did not consider the Tenth Amendment behind it but instead held that the express power granted to the states has always been limited by its terms. It also held that any denial of such power by the Congress is interference in the internal trade and business of the States, and it exceeds the power where the national government can interfere, but only for necessary and proper means for carrying out the execution of the power that is expressly granted.

In the early 20th century, the Court struck down several federal laws that it found to be an overreach of the federal government’s power. For example, in the case of Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), the Court struck down a law that prohibited the interstate transportation of goods made by child labor. The Court found that this law was an invasion of the state’s police power. However, since the 1930s, the Court has generally taken a more expansive view of the federal government’s taxing power. In the case of United States v. Darby (1941), the Supreme Court upheld a law that established a minimum wage and maximum work hours for employees engaged in interstate commerce. The Court found that this law was a valid exercise of the federal government’s commerce power. The Supreme Court has also upheld federal taxes on state governments. For example, in the case of Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe (1939), the Court upheld a federal income tax on the salaries of state employees. The Supreme Court found that this tax was a valid exercise of the federal government’s taxing power and that it did not violate the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Lopez (1995) that Congress could not prohibit people from bringing guns into school zones. The Court said that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the power to regulate activities that have only a local impact on the economy. The court rejected the federal government’s view, under which it held that although the federal government can frame laws for the functioning of the national economy, this does not mean it could frame laws for everything. Similarly, in the case of United States v. Morrison, (2000), the court invalidated the provision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which dealt with the federal cause of action for victims of gender-motivated violence. The court upheld that Congress may not regulate non-economic, violent criminal conduct solely based on interstate commerce. Thus, Congress could not itself undertake to punish a violation of state law.

Effect on federal regulations affecting state activities and instrumentalities

The Supreme Court has been divided over whether the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution limits the federal government’s power to regulate state activities. In the case of Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, (1985), the Supreme Court held that the Tenth Amendment limits the powers of federal legislation and held that states must look into redressal of this problem. It further pointed to the same view in South Carolina v. Baker (1988), where the Supreme Court held that there must be some serious extraordinary defects in the national political process that could impose allegations of regulation of state activities by Congress. Thus, it can be said that limits on Congress’s authority to regulate state activities are structural and not substantive.

Later on, in the case of New York v. United States,(1992) the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot order the states to enact or administer federal regulatory programs. Further in Printz v. United States (1997) the Supreme Court observed that the federal government cannot force state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers. The Court said that this would violate the principle of federalism, which holds that the federal government and the states are separate and equal sovereigns. The Court said that the federal government cannot issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems or command the states’ officers to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. The Court said that such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.

The Supreme Court ruled in Reno v. Condon (2000) that the federal government can regulate the states as the owners of databases. This means that the federal government can make laws that tell the states what they can and cannot do with the data they collect. The Court found that the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA) is a valid law because it regulates the states directly rather than telling them how to regulate their citizens. The DPPA restricts the disclosure and resale of personal information contained in the records of state motor vehicle departments.

Thus, the Tenth Amendment limits the power of the federal government to regulate the state government. However, there have been interpretations by the courts where courts have tried to balance the power between the two governments by allowing the federal government to regulate the legislation without interfering with the sovereignty of the state governments.

The Fourteenth Amendment: a better framework

The system of federalism devised by the framers of the Constitution consisted of three basic elements.

A federal government with substantial but limited powers, including the power to safeguard rights against violations by state governments.
The retention by the states of all the other legitimate government powers, including the power to protect individual rights in state constitutions.
Sovereignty in the people with protection of individual rights.

However, in practice, none of the provisions proved to be appropriate. The federal government exceeded the constitutional limitations, and the state governments did not act according to the powers delegated to them. The original Constitution had the system of dual federalism which provided that neither the states nor the federal government shall overpower each other but rather would have their own spheres of power. The framers of the Constitution believed that the states were the protectors of individual rights and liberties. However, states were considered the primary organic communities that were establishing themselves as states rather than a national identity. During the 1830s, the states objected to the federally enacted tariffs, so they were considered the violators rather than guardians of individual liberty. New protections for individual rights and additional restraints on government power were enacted. This required the expansion of federal government power to protect individual liberty.

The most significant development to protect the rights of individuals was to transfer primary authority from states to national government. It would be fair to say that the concept of states was not embraced by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, this Amendment substantially altered the relationship and balance of powers between the national government and the states. The role of protecting individual liberties was again assigned to the national government. The greatest shift in power was within the federal judiciary, which was entrusted with the protection of rights against both federal and state deprivations. The Fourteenth Amendment did not supplant the Tenth Amendment. The states could still exercise legitimate government powers that were not expressly granted to the national government. The national government was given a new power, but it was to be exercised only as a negative restraint against the oppressions of the state.

Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment was successful in making the design of federalism complete. It was held that the conflict between individual liberty and the power of the national government should be resolved in favor of individual liberty unless special powers are delegated to the national government to do so. In the same way, conflicts between individual liberty and the power of state government should be resolved in favor of individual liberty unless express powers are provided to state governments. It was also held that whenever there is a conflict between the state and national government, it should be resolved in favor of the state government unless the national government is provided express power to protect individual liberty. Thus, irrespective of the fact the national government has grown, American society remains fairly decentralized, with many decisions reserved for state and local governments.

Dual federalism

Different models of federalism have been widely used over the years. These models are significant since they help determine how the model of the federal system operates. Dual federalism is sometimes called layer-cake federalism. It states that each level of government is supreme within its areas of responsibility. This means that neither level is dominant. Whether it is state government or national government, each of the levels must not interfere in the affairs of the other. This form of federalism focuses on the system of balance. Dual federalism is a form of federalism in which the states and the federal government have separate and distinct spheres of power. Under this system, the federal government is responsible for certain matters, such as foreign affairs and national defense, while the states are responsible for matters such as education and taxation. This system of government has been in place since the founding of the nation, although the exact division of power has changed over time.

The concept of dual federalism evolved from two main sources. The first is the tradition of confederation, which was an arrangement between states and nations, established under the Articles of Confederation, and the other is the influence of Thomas Jefferson, who was a great synthesizer of dual federalist culture. Under the Articles of Confederation, the powers were more aligned with the states. The states were sovereign, and the central government was dependent on them. As a result, the strength of local cultures was increased.

Dual federalism and social evolution

In the mid-twentieth century, the national government interfered in the local business and social lives of individual states. It involved the rules and regulations recognizing political inequality and slavery, the Civil War and the maintenance of order. However, such national interference was limited by the period of the Great Depression, and under the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, which resulted in the decline of dualism in the 1930s. This decline was due to various reasons. The major reason was the failure of the economy in the 1930s, which required the direct intervention of the Roosevelt administration and, in later stages, even the Supreme Court.

The second reason was new developmental programs in the form of grants-in-aid and further expansion of state level regulation of the economy, which resulted in new interventions in the politics of the states. Later on, interference by the Supreme Court in issues such as government arbitration of labor disputes and racial discrimination. All these issues resulted in the shifting of the grounds of belief on which American federalism was based. The shift was in favor of an expanded national government, where most Americans wanted a strong national role in providing social security and strong national action in environmental protection and civil rights.

The concrete forms of Dualism today

There are various forms of dualism present today that can be summarized as follows:

Dualist culture
Public policy dualism
Dual legal systems
Dual institutional and representative systems
Social life in the local context
Dual power and interest group systems

However, today, dualism has made a minor comeback. It developed during the period of 1972, with the concept of “New Federalism,” under which efforts were made to decentralize the administration of fiscal sources and grants. It included the decentralization of power and policy control to the states and localities, except for the issues of religion and personal morality concerning drug use and abortion. It involved the swap of responsibilities to the states and the return of power to the states. There has been a shift in the patterns of public issues. The tax-gathering capacity of the center has been lower now than in the 1970s due to tax reform policies. It kept the tax capacity of the federal treasury low but returned the tax burden to the states. The public spending of the national government has experienced some reduction since the 1980s. The trends involve a smaller percentage of revenues for social welfare and a greater share for defense. In addition to this, there have been cuts in the federal grants to cities and states and along with this shifting of enforcement and tax burdens to the states..

What form of dualism exists today is the fragmentation of public policy. Although there has been joint action in most of the policies, a lot of regulations related to social issues, and economic policies are by and large dominated by one or another level of government. The national government has a clear control over defense, civil rights and macroeconomic policy, whereas the state governments still dominate education, welfare, social values and crime. It has been concluded that this fragmentation has affected the implementation of public policies at a local level. Dualism is the major root cause behind the policy implementation at separate government levels. Thus, when the policy emerges from Congress or the states, it is the result of compromises between national and local perspectives.

Effects of federalism on power and policy in the American political system

Federalism in America has impacted the power and policy-making decisions of the government. The major effect lies in the state and local functions where the rules and regulations regarding education, crime control, provision of basic services and local economic growth are influenced more by state and local governments, cultures and interests than by national or private elites. There are various state and local issues that emerge from political cultures and conflicts. So these local and state political cultures determine the responses to national issues. There are also certain interlocal conflicts which are based on regional differences within the states. These conflicts concern areas of services, highways, taxation and other primary distribution issues.

In the national-local pattern, cities largely show their inclination towards the national government due to the contribution of the national government in grants, regulation, urban development and other policy areas. The effect of federalism on the decision making power concerns the representation of private elites in top government posts. However, there are certain instances where federalism features separation of powers and recognition of dualism. Along with the separation of powers, there is a certain scheme where social interests are represented in all three branches of government. The Senate represented more elite, educated interests and was more insulated from direct electoral and constituent pressures. The national government was to focus on military, foreign policy and administrative functions. The role of courts involved a representation of social interests.

Dualism had its own impacts. The major focus of the dual type of federalism was to isolate policy-making at two national and state levels. This involved a dual level of courts, legal systems and bureaucracies and legislatures. The states wanted more progressive and democratic reforms. The parties were more centered towards the states which included the taking away of power away from national elites and government. Federalism had an impact on the public policy outcomes in America. Power has effects on both people and places. The effects of power in the federal system are called policy outcomes. Policy outcomes involve what people get and what difference it makes when implemented. The initial impact is on macroeconomic policy. The Congress was granted centralized economic powers. It is the national government that controls the macroeconomic fiscal and monetary policy and all the other major economic developments.

One of the most important issues is that there should be a properly organized level of government to exercise control over policy. Also, there is another issue of contention about whose goals will prevail, i.e., the national government or the state government. It is seen that there have been secondary influences of the national government through courts, general bureaucracies and regulatory agencies. At the subnational level, governors play an important role in policy formulation. Another level is controlled by states and local media, prominent mayors of cities and city council members. State legislatures and local courts are less prominent in formulating the policies. One level of government alone cannot resolve the issue of the direction of policy. In today’s scenario, governments both at the state and national levels tend to take a cooperative path towards enactment.

Pros and cons of federalism

Federalism is the division of powers between national and state governments. The US is a federal system, meaning that the states and the federal government share power where the federal government is delegated certain powers by the Constitution. This arrangement has been in place since the nation was founded, and it has been an important factor in the nation’s development. The US Constitution outlines the division of powers between the federal government and the states and outlines the rights and responsibilities of each. Federalism is a way of ensuring that all citizens of the US have equal rights and protection while allowing each state to maintain some autonomy in order to better represent the interests of its citizens. Federalism has both advantages and disadvantages.

Pros of federalism

Below are listed a few of the pros of federalism:

Maintenance of autonomy among states

One of the main advantages of federalism is that it allows states to maintain some autonomy while still being part of a larger nation. This allows states to address the needs of their citizens in a more direct and effective way. It also promotes competition between the states, as they can implement different policies in order to attract businesses and citizens.

Policy formulation and implementation

Federalism helps the states apply different policy approaches. This helps the state center relations to develop innovative solutions to the problems. For example, a number of New Deal breakthroughs, such as child labor laws, were inspired by state policies.

Political participation

Federalism has different levels of government which helps the citizens to participate in the political process. This in turn encourages civil participation of people and the government becomes more aware to fulfill the needs of people.

Diversity among citizens

Since each level of government whether at the national or state level has a role to play in the politics of the country, it helps states to reflect their diversity. Each state has its own citizenship which helps in the recognition of people individually at both the state level and national level. Also, the policies that are implemented are structured for the social welfare of citizens at the local level. For example, states with large Hispanic populations can adopt policies that are tailored to the needs of those communities.

Cons of federalism

These are some of the cons of Federalism:

Economic disparities

This is one of the most common disadvantages that any nation promoting federalism would have. There can be large economic differences among the states due to different levels of resources and opportunities. There are chances that the poorer states may not get an equal level of monetary help with respect to other states, due to which they may lack progress in development and other issues.

Race-to-the-bottom dynamics

States may compete with each other to attract businesses by lowering taxes and regulations. This can lead to a “race to the bottom,” in which states lower their standards in order to attract businesses, even if it comes at the expense of workers or the environment.

Difficulties in implementing policies at the national level

One of the main disadvantages is that it can lead to conflicts between the states and the federal government. This can cause confusion and lead to delays in the implementation of policies. It can also lead to a lack of uniformity, as each state has the ability to create its own laws and regulations. Every state may have its own priorities and interests. One law passed by the central government cannot be implemented with wholeheartedness at the state level as each state has its own circumstances to deal with the issue. This creates problems for the citizens. For example, it has been difficult to pass national gun control legislation because of the strong opposition from some states.

Conclusion

Federalism is a system of government which can be said as a layered form of government under which the federal government oversees the entire nation and the individual states coexist with each other. This system of governance has been a foundational aspect that ensures fairness among the states and the nation as a whole. The US Constitution provides for powers designated to each form of government. Over time, the federal government has gained more influence but still, the states have a significant role in governance. The US Constitution provides for the structure of both forms of government. Thus, federalism in the US is the sharing of power between both the central and state governments. This dynamic system defines the United States as a federal system with a governance model that serves the interests of its population. It is important to understand the different aspects of federalism in order to fully appreciate the benefits and drawbacks of this form of government.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the “privileges and immunities” clause?

It provides that citizens of each State shall enjoy the “privileges and immunities of citizens” in other states. According to this clause, if the citizens of one state are residing temporarily in the other state either due to travel work or such other temporary purposes, they shall be entitled to equal treatment with local citizens.

Explain briefly the different branches of the Federal government.

The Federal Government consists of three branches which are the Legislative, Executive and Judicial The powers of the above institutions are vested by the US Constitution in the Congress, President and federal Courts.

Discuss how the power is distributed among states and national governments in the U.S. Constitution.

There are some powers that are granted only to the national government and the states, but there are certain powers that are shared by both, and certain powers over which neither can exercise their powers. States have retained their sovereignty where they had the right to judge whether the national government was acting appropriately. This approach is the major component of state-centered federalism. In addition to overcoming these controversies, the Constitution provides for a House of Representatives which is elected by the voters and ultimately derives the authority from the people.

How is the Tenth Amendment impacting the division of powers among the states?

The Tenth Amendment was adopted to suggest that it was adopted to declare the relationship between the national and the state governments. The major purpose of this amendment was from the fears that the new national government might exercise powers that are not granted to them and the states will not be able to exercise their fully reserved powers

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity