essay about state government

The Roles of State and Federal Governments

A discussion of the roles of the state and federal governments, and their concurrent and exclusive powers.

Social Studies, Civics

President James Madison

“[T]he powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State,” Madison.

Painting by Gilbert Stuart from the U.S. Library of Congress

The United States is a constitution -based federal system, meaning power is distributed between a national ( federal ) government and local (state) governments. Although the Supremacy Clause states that the Constitution , federal laws, and treaties are the “supreme law of the land,” according to the Supreme Court, it is clear that the Constitution created a federal government of limited powers. The Supreme Court has noted that “every law enacted by Congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated in the Constitution .” These limited powers are set forth as what are termed “enumerated powers” in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution . These enumerated powers include, among other things, the power to levy taxes , regulate commerce, establish a uniform law of naturalization , establish federal courts (subordinate to the Supreme Court), establish and maintain a military, and declare war. In addition, the Necessary and Proper Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to define “implied powers,” those which are necessary to carry out those powers enumerated in the Constitution . In McCulloch v. Maryland , Justice John Marshall set forth the doctrine of implied powers, stating, that a government entrusted with great powers must also be entrusted with the power to execute them. While the Constitution thus grants broad powers to the federal government, they are limited by the 10th Amendment, which states that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” As James Madison explained, “[t]he powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” These reserved powers have generally been referred to as “police powers,” such as those required for public safety, health, and welfare. Finally, certain powers are called concurrent powers, which the states and the federal government both may exercise. These can include, for example, setting up courts, levying taxes , and spending and borrowing money. Typically, these are powers necessary for maintenance of public facilities. As can be appreciated, one of the difficulties in the federal system is determining which entity, if any, has the power to legislate in a particular realm. In general, the problem of conflicting laws between the states and the federal government has given rise to what is called the doctrine of preemption. Under this doctrine, based on the Supremacy Clause, if a state or local law conflicts with a federal law, the state or local law must give way (unless the federal law is itself unconstitutional , in other words, it exceeds the power of the federal government). As Justice Marshall put it in McCulloch v. Maryland , “[s]tates have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the Constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the Federal Government.” Under this doctrine, the Supreme Court has indicated that the Supremacy Clause may entail preemption of state law either by express provision, by implication, or by a conflict between federal and state law. If there is an express provision in the legislation , or if there is an explicit conflict between the state law at issue and the federal law, the state law provision is immediately invalid. Field preemption occurs when Congress legislates in a way that is comprehensive to an entire field of an issue. Impossibility preemption occurs when it would be impossible for someone to comply with both state and federal laws. Purposes and objectives preemption occurs when the purposes and objectives of the federal law would be thwarted by the state law.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

US government and civics

Course: us government and civics   >   unit 1.

• Federalism in the United States
• Categorical grants, mandates, and the Commerce Clause
• Article IV of the Constitution: States, Citizenship, New States
• The relationship between the states and the federal government

The relationship between the states and the federal government: lesson overview

Document to know

Exclusive and concurrent powers of state and federal governments.

Key takeaways

Review questions, want to join the conversation.

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

25 Essay Topics for American Government Classes

Writing Ideas That Will Make Students Think

• Teaching Resources
• An Introduction to Teaching
• Tips & Strategies
• Policies & Discipline
• Community Involvement
• School Administration
• Technology in the Classroom
• Teaching Adult Learners
• Issues In Education
• Becoming A Teacher
• Assessments & Tests
• Elementary Education
• Secondary Education
• Special Education
• Homeschooling
• M.Ed., Curriculum and Instruction, University of Florida
• B.A., History, University of Florida

If you are a teacher searching for essay topics to assign to your U.S. government or civics class or looking for ideas, do not fret. It is easy to integrate debates and discussions into the classroom environment. These topic suggestions provide a wealth of ideas for written assignments such as  position papers , compare-and-contrast essays , and  argumentative essays . Scan the following 25 question topics and ideas to find just the right one. You'll soon be reading interesting papers from your students after they grapple with these challenging and important issues.

• Compare and contrast what is a direct democracy versus representative democracy. 
• React to the following statement: Democratic decision-making should be extended to all areas of life including schools, the workplace, and the government. 
• Compare and contrast the Virginia and New Jersey plans. Explain how these led to the Great Compromise .
• Pick one thing about the U.S. Constitution including its amendments that you think should be changed. What modifications would you make? Explain your reasons for making this change.
• What did Thomas Jefferson mean when he said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants?" Do you think that this statement still applies to today's world? 
• Compare and contrast mandates and conditions of aid regarding the federal government's relationship with states. For example, how has the Federal Emergency Management Agency delivered support to states and commonwealths that have experienced natural disasters?
• Should individual states have more or less power compared to the federal government when implementing laws dealing with topics such as the legalization of marijuana  and abortion ? 
• Outline a program that would get more people to vote in presidential elections or local elections.
• What are the dangers of gerrymandering when it comes to voting and presidential elections?
• Compare and contrast the major political parties in the United States. What policies are they preparing for upcoming elections?
• Why would voters choose to vote for a third party, even though they know that their candidate has virtually no chance of winning? 
• Describe the major sources of money that are donated to political campaigns. Check out the Federal Election Regulatory Commission's website for information.
• Should corporations be treated as individuals regarding being allowed to donate to political campaigns?  Look at the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC ruling on the issue. Defend your answer. 
• Explain the role of social media in connecting interest groups that have grown stronger as the major political parties have grown weaker. 
• Explain why the media has been called the fourth branch of government. Include your opinion on whether this is an accurate portrayal.
• Compare and contrast the campaigns of U.S. Senate and House of Representatives candidates.
• Should term limits be instituted for members of Congress? Explain your answer.
• Should members of Congress vote their conscience or follow the will of the people who elected them into office? Explain your answer.
• Explain how executive orders have been used by presidents throughout the history of the U.S. What is the number of executive orders issued by the current president?
• In your opinion, which of the three branches of the federal government has the most power? Defend your answer.
• Which of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment do you consider the most important? Explain your answer. 
• Should a school be required to get a warrant before searching a student's property? Defend your answer. 
• Why did the Equal Rights Amendment fail? What kind of campaign could be run to see it passed?
• Explain how the 14th Amendment has affected civil liberties in the United States from the time of its passage at the end of the Civil War.
• Do you think that the federal government has enough, too much or just the right amount of power? Defend your answer.
• 50 Argumentative Essay Topics
• 100 Persuasive Essay Topics
• January Writing Prompts
• Key Election Terms for Students
• 501 Topic Suggestions for Writing Essays and Speeches
• Expository Essay Genre With Suggested Prompts
• Voting Rights Background for Students
• Presidential Elections: ESL Lesson
• American Government Journal Topics
• Topical Organization Essay
• Fun March Writing Prompts for Journaling
• 12 Interesting Ethical Topics for Essay Papers
• Campaign Finance Laws: Definition and Examples
• Current Political Campaign Contribution Limits
• What Is Majoritarianism? Definition and Examples
• What Is Political Participation? Definition and Examples

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction & Quick Facts
• The Interior Lowlands and their upland fringes
• The Appalachian Mountain system
• The Atlantic Plain
• The Western Cordillera
• The Western Intermontane Region
• The Eastern systems
• The Pacific systems
• Climatic controls
• The change of seasons
• The Humid East
• The Humid Pacific Coast
• The Dry West
• The Humid–Arid Transition
• The Western mountains
• Animal life
• Early models of land allocation
• Creating the national domain
• Distribution of rural lands
• Patterns of farm life
• Regional small-town patterns
• Weakening of the agrarian ideal
• Impact of the motor vehicle
• Reversal of the classic rural dominance
• Classic patterns of siting and growth
• New factors in municipal development
• The new look of the metropolitan area
• Individual and collective character of cities
• The supercities
• The hierarchy of culture areas
• New England
• The Midland
• The Midwest
• The problem of “the West”
• Ethnic European Americans
• African Americans
• Asian Americans
• Middle Easterners
• Native Americans
• Religious groups
• Immigration
• Strengths and weaknesses
• Labour force
• Agriculture, forestry, and fishing
• Biological resources
• Manufacturing
• Foreign trade
• Roads and railroads
• Water and air transport
• The executive branch
• The legislative branch
• The judicial branch

State and local government

Voting and elections, money and campaigns.

• Political parties
• National security
• Domestic law enforcement
• Health and welfare
• The visual arts and postmodernism
• The theatre
• Motion pictures
• Popular music
• The European background
• The New England colonies
• The middle colonies
• The Carolinas and Georgia
• Imperial organization
• Political growth
• Population growth
• Economic growth
• Land, labour, and independence
• Colonial culture
• From a city on a hill to the Great Awakening
• Colonial America, England, and the wider world
• The Native American response
• The tax controversy
• Constitutional differences with Britain
• The Continental Congress
• The American Revolutionary War
• Treaty of Paris
• Problems before the Second Continental Congress
• State politics
• The Constitutional Convention
• The social revolution
• Religious revivalism
• The Federalist administration and the formation of parties
• The Jeffersonian Republicans in power
• Madison as president and the War of 1812
• The Indian-American problem
• Effects of the War of 1812
• National disunity
• Transportation revolution
• Beginnings of industrialization
• Birth of American Culture
• Education and the role of women
• The democratization of politics
• The Jacksonians
• The major parties
• Minor parties
• Abolitionism
• Support of reform movements
• Religious-inspired reform
• Westward expansion
• Attitudes toward expansionism
• Sectionalism and slavery
• Popular sovereignty
• Polarization over slavery
• The coming of the war
• Moves toward emancipation
• Sectional dissatisfaction
• Foreign affairs
• Lincoln’s plan
• The Radicals’ plan
• Johnson’s policy
• “Black Codes”
• Civil rights legislation
• The South during Reconstruction
• The Ulysses S. Grant administrations, 1869–77
• The era of conservative domination, 1877–90
• Jim Crow legislation
• Booker T. Washington and the Atlanta Compromise
• Westward migration
• Urban growth
• The mineral empire
• The open range
• The expansion of the railroads
• Indian policy
• The dispersion of industry
• Industrial combinations
• Foreign commerce
• Formation of unions
• The Haymarket Riot
• The Rutherford B. Hayes administration
• The administrations of James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur
• The surplus and the tariff
• The public domain
• The Interstate Commerce Act
• The election of 1888
• The Sherman Antitrust Act
• The silver issue
• The McKinley tariff
• The agrarian revolt
• The Populists
• The election of 1892
• Cleveland’s second term
• Economic recovery
• The Spanish-American War
• The new American empire
• The Open Door in the Far East
• Building the Panama Canal and American domination in the Caribbean
• Origins of progressivism
• Urban reforms
• Reform in state governments
• Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive movement
• The Republican insurgents
• The 1912 election
• The New Freedom and its transformation
• Woodrow Wilson and the Mexican Revolution
• Loans and supplies for the Allies
• German submarine warfare
• Arming for war
• Break with Germany
• Mobilization
• America’s role in the war
• Wilson’s vision of a new world order
• The Paris Peace Conference and the Versailles Treaty
• The fight over the treaty and the election of 1920
• Postwar conservatism
• Peace and prosperity
• New social trends
• The Great Depression
• Agricultural recovery
• Business recovery
• The second New Deal and the Supreme Court
• The culmination of the New Deal
• An assessment of the New Deal
• The road to war
• War production
• Financing the war
• Social consequences of the war
• The 1944 election
• The new U.S. role in world affairs
• The Truman Doctrine and containment
• Postwar domestic reorganization
• The Red Scare
• The Korean War
• Peace, growth, and prosperity
• Domestic issues
• World affairs
• An assessment of the postwar era
• The New Frontier
• The Great Society
• The civil rights movement
• Latino and Native American activism
• Social changes
• The Vietnam War
• Domestic affairs
• The Watergate scandal
• The Gerald R. Ford administration
• Domestic policy
• The Ronald Reagan administration
• The George H.W. Bush administration
• The Bill Clinton administration
• The George W. Bush administration
• Election and inauguration
• Tackling the “Great Recession,” the “Party of No,” and the emergence of the Tea Party movement
• Negotiating health care reform
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)
• Deepwater Horizon oil spill
• Military de-escalation in Iraq and escalation in Afghanistan
• The 2010 midterm elections
• WikiLeaks, the “Afghan War Diary,” and the “Iraq War Log”
• The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ratification of START, and the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords
• Budget compromise
• The Arab Spring, intervention in Libya, and the killing of Osama bin Laden
• The debt ceiling debate
• The failed “grand bargain”
• Raising the debt ceiling, capping spending, and the efforts of the “super committee”
• Occupy Wall Street, withdrawal from Iraq, and slow economic recovery
• Deportation policy changes, the immigration law ruling, and sustaining Obamacare’s “individual mandate”
• The 2012 presidential campaign, a fluctuating economy, and the approaching “fiscal cliff”
• The Benghazi attack and Superstorm Sandy
• The 2012 election
• The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
• “Sequester” cuts, the Benghazi furor, and Susan Rice on the hot seat
• The IRS scandal, the Justice Department’s AP phone records seizure, and Edward Snowden’s leaks
• Removal of Mohammed Morsi, Obama’s “red line” in Syria, and chemical weapons
• The decision not to respond militarily in Syria
• The 2013 government shutdown
• The Obamacare rollout
• The Iran nuclear deal, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, and the Ukraine crisis
• The rise of ISIL (ISIS), the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner swap, and imposition of stricter carbon emission standards
• The child migrant border surge, air strikes on ISIL (ISIS), and the 2014 midterm elections
• Normalizing relations with Cuba, the USA FREEDOM Act, and the Office of Personnel Management data breach
• The Ferguson police shooting, the death of Freddie Gray, and the Charleston church shooting
• Same-sex marriage and Obamacare Supreme Court rulings and final agreement on the Iran nuclear deal
• New climate regulations, the Keystone XL pipeline, and intervention in the Syrian Civil War
• The Merrick Garland nomination and Supreme Court rulings on public unions, affirmative action, and abortion
• The Orlando nightclub shooting, the shooting of Dallas police officers, and the shootings in Baton Rouge
• The campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination
• The campaign for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination
• Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server, Donald Trump’s Access Hollywood tape, and the 2016 general election campaign
• Trump’s victory and Russian interference in the presidential election
• “America First,” the Women’s Marches, Trump on Twitter, and “fake news”
• Scuttling U.S. participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, reconsidering the Keystone XL pipeline, and withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement
• ICE enforcement and removal operations
• The travel ban
• Pursuing “repeal and replacement” of Obamacare
• John McCain’s opposition and the failure of “skinny repeal”
• Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, the air strike on Syria, and threatening Kim Jong-Un with “fire and fury”
• Violence in Charlottesville, the dismissal of Steve Bannon, the resignation of Michael Flynn, and the investigation of possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign
• Jeff Session’s recusal, James Comey’s firing, and Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel
• Hurricanes Harvey and Maria and the mass shootings in Las Vegas, Parkland, and Santa Fe
• The #MeToo movement, the Alabama U.S. Senate special election, and the Trump tax cut
• Withdrawing from the Iran nuclear agreement, Trump-Trudeau conflict at the G7 summit, and imposing tariffs
• The Trump-Kim 2018 summit, “zero tolerance,” and separation of immigrant families
• The Supreme Court decision upholding the travel ban, its ruling on Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, No. 16-1466 , and the retirement of Anthony Kennedy
• The indictment of Paul Manafort, the guilty pleas of Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos, and indictments of Russian intelligence officers
• Cabinet turnover
• Trump’s European trip and the Helsinki summit with Vladimir Putin
• The USMCA trade agreement, the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford, and the Supreme Court confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh
• Central American migrant caravans, the pipe-bomb mailings, and the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting
• The 2018 midterm elections
• The 2018–19 government shutdown
• Sessions’s resignation, choosing a new attorney general, and the ongoing Mueller investigation
• The Mueller report
• The impeachment of Donald Trump
• The coronavirus pandemic
• The killing of George Floyd and nationwide racial injustice protests
• The 2020 U.S. election
• The COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Delta and Omicron variants, and the American Rescue Plan Act
• Economic recovery, the American Rescue Plan Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the failure of Build Back Better
• Stalled voting rights legislation, the fate of the filibuster, and the appointment of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court
• Foreign affairs: U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
• The Buffalo and Uvalde shootings, overturning Roe v. Wade , and the January 6 attack hearings
• Presidents of the United States
• Vice presidents of the United States
• First ladies of the United States
• State maps, flags, and seals
• State nicknames and symbols

• How did Ernest Hemingway influence others?
• What was Ernest Hemingway’s childhood like?
• When did Ernest Hemingway die?
• What did Martin Luther King, Jr., do?
• What is Martin Luther King, Jr., known for?

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• The Library of Congress - The Beginnings of American Railroads and Mapping
• HistoryNet - States’ Rights and The Civil War
• EH.net - Urban Mass Transit In The United States
• Encyclopedia of Alabama - States' Rights
• Central Intelligence Agency - The World Factbook - United States
• U.S. Department of State - Office of the Historian - The United States and the French Revolution
• American Battlefield Trust - Slavery in the United States
• United States - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• United States - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

Because the U.S. Constitution establishes a federal system, the state governments enjoy extensive authority. The Constitution outlines the specific powers granted to the national government and reserves the remainder to the states. However, because of ambiguity in the Constitution and disparate historical interpretations by the federal courts, the powers actually exercised by the states have waxed and waned over time. Beginning in the last decades of the 20th century, for example, decisions by conservative-leaning federal courts, along with a general trend favouring the decentralization of government, increased the power of the states relative to the federal government. In some areas, the authority of the federal and state governments overlap; for example, the state and federal governments both have the power to tax, establish courts, and make and enforce laws. In other areas, such as the regulation of commerce within a state, the establishment of local governments, and action on public health , safety, and morals , the state governments have considerable discretion. The Constitution also denies to the states certain powers; for example, the Constitution forbids states to enter into treaties, to tax imports or exports, or to coin money. States also may not adopt laws that contradict the U.S. Constitution.

The governments of the 50 states have structures closely paralleling those of the federal government. Each state has a governor, a legislature , and a judiciary . Each state also has its own constitution.

Recent News

Mirroring the U.S. Congress, all state legislatures are bicameral except Nebraska’s , which is unicameral. Most state judicial systems are based upon elected justices of the peace (although in many states this term is not used), above whom are major trial courts, often called district courts, and appellate courts. Each state has its own supreme court. In addition, there are probate courts concerned with wills, estates, and guardianships. Most state judges are elected, though some states use an appointment process similar to the federal courts and some use a nonpartisan selection process known as the Missouri Plan .

State governors are directly elected and serve varying terms (generally ranging from two to four years); in some states, the number of terms a governor may serve is limited. The powers of governors also vary, with some state constitutions ceding substantial authority to the chief executive (such as appointment and budgetary powers and the authority to veto legislation). In a few states, however, governors have highly circumscribed authority, with the constitution denying them the power to veto legislative bills.

Most states have a lieutenant governor, who is often elected independently of the governor and is sometimes not a member of the governor’s party. Lieutenant governors generally serve as the presiding officer of the state Senate. Other elected officials commonly include a secretary of state, state treasurer, state auditor, attorney general , and superintendent of public instruction.

State governments have a wide array of functions, encompassing conservation, highway and motor vehicle supervision, public safety and corrections, professional licensing, regulation of agriculture and of intrastate business and industry, and certain aspects of education, public health, and welfare. The administrative departments that oversee these activities are headed by the governor.

Each state may establish local governments to assist it in carrying out its constitutional powers. Local governments exercise only those powers that are granted to them by the states, and a state may redefine the role and authority of local government as it deems appropriate. The country has a long tradition of local democracy (e.g., the town meeting ), and even some of the smallest areas have their own governments. There are some 85,000 local government units in the United States. The largest local government unit is the county (called a parish in Louisiana or a borough in Alaska). Counties range in population from as few as 100 people to millions (e.g., Los Angeles county). They often provide local services in rural areas and are responsible for law enforcement and keeping vital records. Smaller units include townships, villages, school districts, and special districts (e.g., housing authorities, conservation districts, and water authorities).

Municipal, or city, governments are responsible for delivering most local services, particularly in urban areas. At the beginning of the 21st century there were some 20,000 municipal governments in the United States. They are more diverse in structure than state governments. There are three basic types: mayor-council , commission , and council-manager governments. The mayor-council form, which is used in Boston , New York City , Philadelphia , Chicago , and thousands of smaller cities, consists of an elected mayor and council. The power of mayors and councils vary from city to city; in most cities the mayor has limited powers and serves largely as a ceremonial leader, but in some cities (particularly large urban areas) the council is nominally responsible for formulating city ordinances, which the mayor enforces, but the mayor often controls the actions of the council. In the commission type, used less frequently now than it was in the early 20th century, voters elect a number of commissioners, each of whom serves as head of a city department; the presiding commissioner is generally the mayor. In the council-manager type, used in large cities such as Charlotte (North Carolina), Dallas (Texas), Phoenix (Arizona), and San Diego (California), an elected council hires a city manager to administer the city departments. The mayor, elected by the council, simply chairs the council and officiates at important functions.

As society has become increasingly urban, politics and government have become more complex. Many problems of the cities, including transportation, housing, education, health, and welfare, can no longer be handled entirely on the local level. Because even the states do not have the necessary resources, cities have often turned to the federal government for assistance, though proponents of local control have urged that the federal government provide block-grant aid to state and local governments without federal restrictions.

Political process

The framers of the U.S. Constitution focused their efforts primarily on the role, power, and function of the state and national governments, only briefly addressing the political and electoral process. Indeed, three of the Constitution’s four references to the election of public officials left the details to be determined by Congress or the states. The fourth reference, in Article II, Section 1, prescribed the role of the Electoral College in choosing the president, but this section was soon amended (in 1804 by the Twelfth Amendment ) to remedy the technical defects that had arisen in 1800, when all Democratic-Republican Party electors cast their votes for Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr , thereby creating a tie because electors were unable to differentiate between their presidential and vice presidential choices. (The election of 1800 was finally settled by Congress, which selected Jefferson president following 36 ballots.)

In establishing the Electoral College, the framers stipulated that “Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.” In 1845 Congress established that presidential electors would be appointed on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November; the electors cast their ballots on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December. Article I, establishing Congress, merely provides (Section 2) that representatives are to be “chosen every second Year by the People of the several States” and that voting qualifications are to be the same for Congress as for the “most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” Initially, senators were chosen by their respective state legislatures (Section 3), though this was changed to popular election by the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. Section 4 leaves to the states the prescription of the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives” but gives Congress the power “at any time by Law [to] make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” In 1875 Congress designated the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in even years as federal election day.

All citizens at least 18 years of age are eligible to vote. (Prisoners, ex-felons, and individuals on probation or parole are prohibited, sometimes permanently, from voting in some states.) The history of voting rights in the United States has been one of gradual extension of the franchise. Religion, property ownership, race, and gender have disappeared one by one as legal barriers to voting. In 1870, through the Fifteenth Amendment , formerly enslaved people were granted the right to vote, though African Americans were subsequently still denied the franchise (particularly in the South) through devices such as literacy tests, poll taxes , and grandfather clauses . Only in the 1960s, through the Twenty-fourth Amendment (barring poll taxes) and the Voting Rights Act , were the full voting rights of African Americans guaranteed. Though universal manhood suffrage had theoretically been achieved following the American Civil War , women’s suffrage was not fully guaranteed until 1920 with the enactment of the Nineteenth Amendment (several states, particularly in the West, had begun granting women the right to vote and to run for political office beginning in the late 19th century). Suffrage was also extended by the Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971), which lowered the minimum voting age to 18.

Voters go to the polls in the United States not only to elect members of Congress and presidential electors but also to cast ballots for state and local officials, including governors, mayors, and judges, and on ballot initiatives and referendums that may range from local bond issues to state constitutional amendments ( see referendum and initiative ). The 435 members of the House of Representatives are chosen by the direct vote of the electorate in single-member districts in each state. State legislatures (sometimes with input from the courts) draw congressional district boundaries, often for partisan advantage ( see gerrymandering ); incumbents have always enjoyed an electoral advantage over challengers, but, as computer technology has made redistricting more sophisticated and easier to manipulate, elections to the House of Representatives have become even less competitive, with more than 90 percent of incumbents who choose to run for reelection regularly winning—often by significant margins. By contrast, Senate elections are generally more competitive.

Voters indirectly elect the president and vice president through the Electoral College . Instead of choosing a candidate, voters actually choose electors committed to support a particular candidate. Each state is allotted one electoral vote for each of its senators and representatives in Congress; the Twenty-third Amendment (1961) granted electoral votes to the District of Columbia , which does not have congressional representation. A candidate must win a majority (270) of the 538 electoral votes to be elected president. If no candidate wins a majority, the House of Representatives selects the president, with each state delegation receiving one vote; the Senate elects the vice president if no vice presidential candidate secures an Electoral College majority. A candidate may lose the popular vote but be elected president by winning a majority of the electoral vote (as George W. Bush did in the U.S. presidential election of 2000 ), though such inversions are rare. Presidential elections are costly and generate much media and public attention—sometimes years before the actual date of the general election. Indeed, some presidential aspirants have declared their candidacies years in advance of the first primaries and caucuses , and some White House hopefuls drop out of the grueling process long before the first votes are cast.

Voting in the United States is not compulsory, and, in contrast to most other Western countries, voter turnout is quite low. In the late 20th and the early 21st century, about 50 percent of Americans cast ballots in presidential elections; turnout was even lower for congressional and state and local elections, with participation dropping under 40 percent for most congressional midterm elections (held midway through a president’s four-year term). Indeed, in some local elections (such as school board elections or bond issues) and primaries or caucuses, turnout has sometimes fallen below 10 percent. High abstention rates led to efforts to encourage voter participation by making voting easier. For example, in 1993 Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act (the so-called “motor-voter law”), which required states to allow citizens to register to vote when they received their driver’s licenses, and in 1998 voters in Oregon approved a referendum that established a mail-in voting system. In addition, some states now allow residents to register to vote on election day, polls are opened on multiple days and in multiple locations in some states, and Internet voting has even been introduced on a limited basis for some elections.

Campaigns for all levels of office are expensive in the United States compared with those in most other democratic countries. In an attempt to reduce the influence of money in the political process, reforms were instituted in the 1970s that required public disclosure of contributions and limited the amounts of contributions to candidates for federal office. Individuals were allowed to contribute directly to a candidate no more than $1,000 in so-called “ hard money ” (i.e., money regulated by federal election law) per candidate per election. The law, however, allowed labour unions, corporations, political advocacy groups, and political parties to raise and spend unregulated “ soft money ,” so long as funds were not spent specifically to support a candidate for federal office (in practice, this distinction was often blurry). Because there were no limits on such soft money, individuals or groups could contribute to political parties any sum at their disposal or spend limitlessly to advocate policy positions (often to the benefit or detriment of particular candidates). In the 2000 election cycle, it is estimated that more than $1 billion was spent by the Democratic and Republican parties and candidates for office, with more than two-fifths of this total coming from soft money contributions.

Concerns about campaign financing led to the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (popularly called the “McCain-Feingold law” for its two chief sponsors in the Senate, Republican John McCain and Democrat Russell Feingold), which banned national political parties from raising soft money. The law also increased the amount individuals could contribute to candidates (indexing the amount for inflation) and prevented interest groups from broadcasting advertisements that specifically referred to a candidate within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election.

In 2010 the contribution limits imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act were partly invalidated by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , which ruled that contributions made for independent electioneering communications were a form of constitutionally protected free speech that could not be limited by law. The controversial decision was hailed by some as a resounding victory for freedom of speech , whereas others criticized it as an overreaching attempt to rewrite campaign finance law. The judgment led to the growth of so-called Super PACs, organizations allowed to raise unlimited amounts of money to support or defeat a candidate or an issue so long as those expenditures were made independently from the official campaign.

There are no federal limits on how much an individual may spend on his or her own candidacy. In 1992, for example, Ross Perot spent more than $60 million of his fortune on his unsuccessful bid to become president of the United States, and Michael Bloomberg was elected mayor of New York City in 2001 after spending nearly $70 million of his own funds.

Chapter 2: Federalism

2.a – introduction.

      More than any other aspect of U.S. government structure, federalism contributes significantly to innovation in state, local and national government alike. 1 However, it is unlikely that the contemporary impacts of federalism in postindustrial America were fully anticipated by the framers of the U.S. constitution.  The Founders were driven to a much greater extent by a desire to strike a balance in political power between a nascent national government and the several pre-existing state governments than in promoting innovation and the capacity to adapt to ever changing socio-economic and environmental circumstances.  The adoption of a federal form of government at the outset of our nation’s history reflected an appreciation for the cultural heterogeneity that characterized the original thirteen states. 2 As the intergovernmental relationships between the federal government and the several states have evolved over time, however, federalism in America has repeatedly proven to serve as an important institutional asset in the service of sustainability.

      This chapter will demonstrate how a variety of incentive structures propel state and local governments toward greater open-mindedness, experimentation, and learning from experience than is generally the case with the national government.  Unlike the more insulated federal government, the several states and their many local governments face increasingly vexing and complex social and economic challenges which cannot be brushed aside in favor of engagement in the rough-and-tumble of global politics and national partisan competition; citizens in our towns, cities, counties and states frequently demand that action be taken to address their immediate concerns for the quality of life where they live, and they tend to expect tangible results from their state and local governments.

      Law enforcement services and community safety are good examples of such concerns for immediate tangible results.  When criminal activity increases in a state or local jurisdiction, citizens often call for stricter laws, stiffer penalties for violations, and more robust enforcement; the sidestepping of issues and the shifting of blame to others are generally not acceptable dodges of responsibility to citizens calling for effective action.  The heightened visibility of problems at the state and local level, and the demand for quick solutions to those problems, commonly place a heavy burden on state and local governments for timely action. While this often intense atmosphere can be quite stressful for state and local policymakers, some of the very best and most innovative solutions to tough problems emerge from this setting – leading to the development of solutions that promote the sustainability of states and local communities in one location that are often copied, modified and implemented in other state and local government settings across the nation.

      The term federalism refers to a formal legal relationship between one or more levels of government vertically organized , and a whole host of relationships between similar levels of government horizontally organized .  As Watts notes, the highly regarded late scholar of federalism Daniel Elazar viewed federalism as a complex contractual arrangement; for Elazar federalism represents a form of “shared rule plus self rule — and a balance between cooperation and competition among the general and constituent governments.” 3 The structure of American federalism was initially intended to protect pre-existing units of government (the states), and serve as an authoritative method of assigning or dividing responsibilities among the levels of government.  In contrast, contemporary approaches to American federalism — the result of over a century of change — clearly emphasize collaboration among and across units of government while continuing to respect the distinctive priorities and needs of populations in different state and local jurisdictions.  Today, an expansive and flexible understanding of American federalism represents a clear opportunity for innovation rather than representing a strict limitation on what actions any particular level of government is allowed to take.

Learning Objectives

This chapter will:

• explore the historical evolution of federalism
• discuss different models of federalism which have evolved over time
• outline a model of intergovernmental relations which promotes sustainability in state and local government
• consider the future of American federalism

2.B – Units of Government

      While most of us are aware that there is one national government and there are fifty state governments, we often lose sight of the fact that there are other units of government that serve our everyday needs.  In fact, in the U.S. there are 90,056 units of government beyond the national government and the fifty state governments.  Each of these units of government offers some degree of opportunity for citizens to make their priorities known and to make demands upon government.  The existence of such a multitude of governmental bodies provides Americans with myriad opportunities to become involved in the political process and to “make a difference” in the quality of life in their respective communities.

      Beyond the prominent national and state governments of which most of us are well aware, there are several additional important types of government that are prominent: counties , municipalities , townships , school districts , and special purpose districts .  As of 2012, there are 3,031 counties in the U.S.  Some states have very few counties — Delaware contains only three — while some states have many counties for example, Texas has 254. The number of local governments has increased by 0.6 percent between the 2007 and 2012 Census of Governments, while the overall number of governments has decreased by 22.9 percent from 116,807 in the 1952 Census of Governments. According to the 2012 Census of Governments by the U.S. Census Bureau:

• Illinois leads the nation with 6,968 local governments — approximately 2,000 more than second-place Pennsylvania.
• Hawaii has 21 local governments, the fewest of any state.
• Texas remains first in the nation with the most independent school districts at 1,079. Closely behind is California, with 1,025 independent school districts.
• Seventeen states had more special districts compared with 2007, and 29 had fewer. Five states had no change.
• Ten states had fewer townships because of mergers and consolidations. Kansas decreased the most, moving from 1,353 in 2007 to 1,268 in 2012, a decrease of 85.

      While the growth of the national government is a frequent topic of discussion in the news media, the fact of the matter is that local government is the more dynamic component of public sector growth by quite a margin.  Special purpose districts are one of the biggest areas for growth in this regard.  There are over 51,146 special purpose districts in the U.S. at this time.  The U.S. Bureau of the Census places special purpose districts into four major categories:  Natural Resources; Fire Protection; Housing and Community Development; and “Other” Special Districts.  Such other special districts relate to water districts, irrigation districts, sewer districts, road districts, public utility districts, port districts, cemetery districts, etc.  One rather unique aspect of American federalism is the ability of state and local governments to create special purpose districts. We will see in this chapter how this aspect of American government plays a substantial role in the promotion of community sustainability .</

2.C – Historic Roots of Federalism

      The origin of American federalism offers great insight into the values which define American culture, and which have guided the development of our public institutions.  As a governing arrangement, federalism occupies a space somewhere between confederal systems and unified systems. 4

      The first governing relationship in the “break away” colonies of former British North America was confederal.  Following the achievement of independence in the Revolutionary War, the former colonies operated as sovereign governmental powers.  The term sovereignty means that a political authority (in this case each colony) recognizes no higher power as a rightful restraint upon its action, and maintains the full right to agree or desist from any collective action with other political authorities of equal status.  Under the Articles of Confederation 5 state sovereignty was duly recognized.  The Articles bound the states to little more than a promise to engage in mutual armed defense.  The Confederation rather quickly proved to be ineffective at coordinating goals or developing cooperative relationships among and between the thirteen state members.

      The confederal governing arrangement was the exact opposite of the form of government from which the colonies had separated — namely, the unitary form of government.  Under unitary government, political power is concentrated in a single location in the hands of a single office (the sovereign) or among a centralized national elite (elected or otherwise).  All units of government at the sub-national level exist entirely at the mercy of the national government, and they exercise only those powers expressly delegated by the sovereign authority.  Lacking sovereignty, in unitary forms of government all sub-national units of government can be created and abolished at the will of the sovereign national government.

Under the second American constitutional arrangement — the U.S. Constitution (1787) — the Founders shared the belief that the confederal system had not been effective and that a governmental arrangement somewhere between confederal and unitary government would more effectively meet the needs of the new nation. 6 American federalism creates some elements of national sovereignty in particular areas of law and governance, while embedding strong protections for state government in many other areas of public life. 7   Over the years the U.S. Supreme Court has had frequent occasion to adjudicate disputes concerning the relative powers of the federal and state governments under the U.S. Constitution, and for the most part those decisions have permitted the national government to extend its powers while at the same time keeping state sovereignty principally in tact.

2.D – Advantages to Federalism

      Over the course of the nation’s history it is clear that there are many advantages to federalism.  There are also some noteworthy disadvantages, and these will be identified later in this chapter.  For the time being the focus rests on advantages.    Six particular advantages merit some discussion here: 8

      1. Myriad of governmental units. Many opportunities exist for citizens to directly influence policy decisions in their respective states or communities;

      2. Competition between units of government .  Competition between jurisdictions for citizens, business investments, and talent may lead to government efficiency.  State and local governments tend to become entrepreneurial, offering greater benefits for the tax dollar 9 [1] or reducing tax burdens to attract citizens and businesses seeking to reduce their fixed costs of operation.

      3. Incentives to prevent growth in government and promote efficiency . The competitive nature of federalism is comparable to many aspects of free market capitalism.  When government is a monopolistic provider, it is more likely to overproduce goods and services.

      4. Responsiveness to citizens is enhanced . If a unit of government becomes too costly, citizens can either demand improved services or move elsewhere.

      5. Federalism is correlated with local government efforts to support private economic growth . The provision of competitively priced infrastructure resources (e.g., roads, utility services, schools, medical services, recreational amenities, etc.) is a critical ingredient in any model of economic growth.  Economic development, in turn, generally creates jobs and enhances household incomes.

      6. Federalism stimulates public and private innovation, often in active partnership . The existence of federalism in the U.S. facilitates the systematic “reinvention of government.” 10 [2] The speed with which creative solutions to locally-experienced problems are replicated is enhanced by the progressive professionalization of state and local government employees and the use of the Internet to capture, store, and disseminate information on a national (and even global) scale.

2.E – Potential Challenges facing Federalism

      While the advantages of federalism almost certainly outweigh the costs for most scholars writing in this area, federalism does face some potential challenges in application in many circumstances.  Three such challenges are:

      1. Federalism can produce unequal outcomes between states, across communities , and for individuals living within these different jurisdictions .  Unequal outcomes are often associated with economic inequalities due to different levels of economic growth across states, and even within states and local communities.  When traveling from city to city, state to state, observe the differences in wealth and opportunity that exist within each location.  At times, these differences are function of city or state capacity to sustain an economic base or to evolve with and adapt to changing economic conditions.

      Historically, states and cities differed considerably in their level of political and social equality.  For decades in many parts of the South, for instance, individual opportunity was systematically biased to benefit whites over persons of color.   A devastating Civil War, major amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and a series of landmark statutes and watershed decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have all worked to overcome serious inequalities brought about by a malevolent manifestation of state’s rights in service to racial discrimination – all permitted by the institution of federalism.

      2. Federalism potentially produces inefficiency through policy replication . Each state and local government independently formulates, finances and implements public policy. In many ways, this is a good thing because each state and local government has its own special set of circumstances and cultural values encoded in its public policy.      However, there are added costs to having each state and local government essentially replicating many policy choices.  In many cases it would be more efficient to have one uniform policy that efficiently and effectively meets all citizens’ needs in a particular area of public life.

      3. Federalism can, at times, cloud our understanding of who is responsible for public policy outcomes . In federalism, many units of government overlap and, at times, the policy preferences of different levels of government collide—i.e., their goals might be diametrically opposed. When policy failure results, constituents often want to know why things are either not being accomplished or not being managed in a manner reflecting their preferences.  The spectacle of finger-pointing across different levels and units of government leaves citizens confused and, at times, upset with government overall.

2.F – Models of Federalism

      Political scientists have developed a number of ways to describe and study federalism.   In their highly regarded synthesis of prior research in this area published as an article in Publius: The Journal of Federalism , Donald Rosenthal and James Hoefler 11 identify a condensed list of models of American federalism featuring the following core concepts:

• dual federalism
• cooperative federalism
• pragmatic federalism
• non-centralized federalism
• nation-centered federalism

2.F.I – Dual Federalism:

      According to Lord James Bryce, 12 a perceptive British observer of early American political life, the U.S. Constitution represents primarily an attempt to “build a more perfect Union” between the national and state governments.  Strengthening the national government provides for a nationwide common market free of tariffs and barriers to commerce, a condition from which all states would benefit.  Such a national government could also “provide for the common defense” more effectively than was possible under the Articles of Confederation.  While certain governmental powers were expressly enumerated for the national government, the U.S. Constitution recognizes that state sovereignty should be carefully provided for in law.  For the advocates of “states’ rights” the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution served — then as now — as the guarantee of a balanced relationship between national and state government; that provision of the constitution is known as the “reserved powers” amendment which holds that all governmental powers which are not explicitly granted to the national government in the constitution are reserved to the states and their people. 13

      In his major work, The American Commonwealth , Lord Bryce noted that even in the post-Civil War period state sovereignty and the notion of dual federalism —namely, two systems fulfilling distinct purposes without any significant overlap in function 14 -was maintained.   States could not be taxed to finance the national government, which is a principle that remains to this day.  American states were afforded a significant amount of autonomy in creating their own legal systems and governmental institutions.  As long as the authority of the national government was not challenged or constrained in those areas where it was constitutionally authorized to act, states retained a significant degree of sovereignty, in some cases exercising powers concurrently shared with the national government.  For Bryce, dual federalism was feasible in the 18th and 19th centuries largely because the scope of government action was rather restricted and far less complicated than it is today; both levels of government had a strong sense of enumerated, retained, and concurrent powers being exercised within a workable constitutional legal framework.

      The federal-state relationship was fairly simple in the early years of the Republic in part because citizens looked primarily to their local communities to provide the basis of a sustainable existence.  Until the early part of the 20th century, most Americans resided in rural settings — primarily in farming communities or small towns.  There was relatively little overlap in government units, reducing the probability of conflict over resources, or in terms of the impact of public or private choices.

      While the dual federalism model was well suited to its times in pre-industrial America, it suffered from limitations that proved to be insurmountable in due course.  Most importantly, the dual federalism model was largely silent on the issue of the protection of individual rights.  A focus on community-derived notions of a good society within a state can have the deleterious effect of restricting individual rights and liberties, particularly those of vulnerable minorities.  In reflection of the dual federalism concept, in the case Barron v. Baltimore, Maryland (1830) the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly defined the national government’s role in protecting the basic liberties and rights of citizens, leaving to the states and their respective constitutions the lion’s share of responsibility in this area of American law.  The Court ruled that those rights set forth in the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the U.S. constitution) applied to the relationship between states and the national government rather than the relationship between citizens and the national government.  The Court left it to the states to decide matters such as what constitutes freedom of speech, the right to counsel a jury of one’s peers, and due process of law in criminal cases.

      Some of the Founders had argued that dual federalism was an unworkable idea, but it took over a century before the social inequities associated with the dual federal model became widely recognized. 15 In looking back over the history of American federalism, one could conclude that much of our history has been spent trying to maximize both the exercise of “freedom and the pursuit of happiness” by citizens and provide for the welfare of the nation, its states, and the communities within which our citizens reside.  This simultaneous pursuit of individual liberty and collective welfare has always been a challenge for our nation, and it continues to demand the best of our thinking.  In the contemporary setting many of our states and local communities endeavor to build a sustainable foundation for life for both present and future generations of Americans.

2.F.II – Cooperative Federalism:

      The dual federalism model survived the Civil War and remained fairly prominent up until the final decades of the 19th century.  The emergence of cooperative federalism — the notion that the presence of urgent shared goals required concerted effort by all levels of government — was, in part, the result of:

• the growth of urbanism and demise of intimate small communities;
• large-scale industrialization and rapid population growth through mass immigration;
• The expansion of the role of the national government as the guarantor of individual rights and liberties.

      These changes in American society inspired many reformers within cities and in some of the states (i.e., Progressives) to press for government “regulation in the public interest.”  The growth of corporate capitalism led to major excesses in the use of private power to the detriment of the public good and the exploitation of the most disadvantaged, and in time gave rise to unionization, social regulation and political reform of machine politics     arising from the corruption of public institutions.  From a sociological perspective, industrialization and urbanization have led to a dispersal of community members so that people are more likely to be highly mobile.  Ironically, Americans tended to adopt a lifestyle of personal independence from family and kin and neighbors alike, becoming more distant from one another in terms of private choices. This impermanency created a false sense of independence even though societal inter-dependence actually increased with innovation with respect to what forms of transportation are used, what forms of energy are consumed, and what food products are consumed.

      During this period social inequities grew, both in terms of the stratification of wealthy and impoverished classes and in terms of inequities associated with the status of women, unorganized labor and racial and ethnic minorities.  Many influential writers and prominent decision-makers of the time contributed in different ways to the progressive vision for the U.S., one that relied heavily on a cooperative relationship between all levels of government responding in a coordinated way to rapid social change.  In many ways, the aforementioned changes challenged the capacity of American democracy, in general, and federalism more particularly, to respond to modern dilemmas using an 18th century model of governance.

      The Progressive reformers of this period believed that many of the positive communitarian aspects of American community and society—the obligation to help neighbors in need, reciprocating a kindness with a kindness in return, volunteering one’s time to civic projects, participating in local governance, etc.) —as described in the historical writings on America penned by the foreign observers Alexis de Tocqueville 16 and Lord James Bryce, were in peril.  Progressives were at once reflective and visionary in their thinking, embracing an idealized vision of an American past but taking a pragmatic approach of action, free of the constraints created by partisan ideology.  The concept of cooperative federalism was developed to expedite the process of addressing serious social and economic problems through forceful governmental action.  The combined use of local, state and national government authority in addressing public health and safety was commonplace, with the guiding principle being “use what works best” in the best sense of pragmatism. 17

      Some critics of cooperative federalism have argued that this model of federalism represents a national government attempt to pull power away from the state and local governments.  In fact, the roots of Progressivism can be traced directly back to state and local government; it was an idea first born at the local level, not at the national level of public political dialogue.  Progressivism recognized many of the very serious social and economic dilemmas that had been largely unaddressed for quite some time:  women’s rights, minority rights, public health and sanitation problems, food and water safety and availability, homelessness, community planning, open and fair government and elections, and accessible and equitable public education, to name but a few of the major issues—issues that remain important and yet today are not addressed as fully as they should be.  How these issues are addressed constitutes the foundation of community sustainability, and affects group and individual rights alike.

      On the state and local level, Progressivism accomplished a great deal in relation to the aforementioned goals.   It is fair to say that many national government efforts were noteworthy, but overall were less pronounced than those witnessed at state and local government levels.  President Theodore Roosevelt made important in-roads through efforts to promote food and drug safety.  Additionally, he challenged the growth of corporate capitalism, which was central to the complex relationship of the individual, the private market, and the public forum.  President William Howard Taft’s Commission on Economy and Efficiency served as the foundation of the modern bureaucratic systems needed for national government response to progressive demands.  Finally, Governor Robert LaFollette (R-Wisconsin) and Governor (and later U.S. President) Woodrow Wilson (D-New Jersey) both campaigned and advanced progressive agendas for political campaign and election reform. Large-scale national progressive reform was not realized until President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.  While critics might claim that many aspects of FDR’s efforts were nation-centered, the outcomes of FDR’s programs have demonstrated over time that many New Deal programs were, in effect, a reflection of cooperative federalism operating under dire socio-economic conditions.

      Cooperative federalism occurs on many points along a continuum of varying locus of action.  Top-down models are generally characterized by considerable national government influence in relation to the states.  An example of top-down federalism might be seen in the area of environmental policies, which are designed to establish national guidelines for environmental quality for the benefit of all citizens.  Conversely, bottom-up federalism often entails innovations originating at the state and local level that, in time, reach national level policy agendas.  Welfare reform, for instance, originated at the state level in Wisconsin.  The innovation was touted as a policy success and became a focus of national policy with the national Welfare Reform Act of 1996.  Over the long run, bottom-up and top-down federalism necessitate a cooperative framework; at the very least, government agencies must accede to the concurrent power and authority of another level of government.

      Given the examples above, it is tempting to fall into the trap of associating top-down with “liberal” and bottom-up with “conservative” political ideologies.  In reality, both political liberals and conservatives alternately see value in both ends of the ideological continuum.  Although a shift away from the strong nation-centered federalism of the Johnson years (1964-1969) occurred, primarily during the Reagan presidency (1981-1989), that shift tended to slow and retreat during the George H.W. Bush presidency. 18   Federalism scholar Paul Peterson has pointed out that many of President George W. Bush’s policies have moved the Republican agenda towards a more top-down model of federalism. 19 Homeland security 20 and education reforms such as No Child Left Behind have increased national government influence over state and local government priorities and, to some degree, led to structural changes in the way services are delivered at the local level. 21 Natural disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita illustrate the limits of the national government to solve local problems of substantial scope and scale. 22

      By themselves, shifting social and political institutional values do not fully explain the nature 23 of cooperative federalism in the United States.   Evolving legal theories established by the Supreme Court were critical not only to the constitutional legitimacy of cooperative federalism, but also to the initiation of movement along the top-down/bottom-up federalism continuum.

2.F.III – Pragmatic Federalism:

      Rosenthal and Hoefler 24 indicate that pragmatic federalism was in part borne out of disenchantment with cooperative federalism.   The latter approach was premised on the notion that behavioral science of the 1950s and 1960s could be used to guide national-level policy choices, identifying target populations and meeting needs.   Social science would guide policy makers at the national government level to tailor policy responses and interactions with state and local policy makers—in essence, the concept entailed the creation through social science of a cooperative intergovernmental relationship.  Unfortunately, many policy prescriptions guided by the behavioral approach failed because the model often ignored many unquantifiable aspects of the policy process such as the interaction between policy institutions, values, preferences, and effective solutions.

      Pragmatic federalism is characterized by two unique qualities:  (1) flexibility—it is outcome-driven rather than process-driven; and (2) the downplaying of the philosophy of government, meaning the set theories about the proper relationship between the national government and state governments are of limited interest in this model. 25   Ad hoc network relationships are considered more important than ex ante approaches (i.e., build the relationship around the problem to be solved rather than make the problem fit around a pre-conceived notion of the relationship).

      Several Democratic state governors began to take a significant role in both the identification and advancement of this new approach to federalism.  A political scientist, former county administrative officer and later a two-term Maryland Governor, Parris Glendening (and co-author Reeves) wrote one of the earlier accounts of this new model of federalism in a 1984 book entitled Pragmatic Federalism:  An Intergovernmental View of American Government .  In his various roles as local and state official, Glendening’s account of pragmatic federalism is built on both theory and practice as he experienced it.

      When Glendening and Reeves developed their approach in the mid-1980s, it was in response to a growing interest in the centralizing tendencies on the part of American national government. 26   At a time when President Ronald Reagan, a champion of smaller national government, was riding high in the opinion polls, Glendening and Reeves argued that a reversal of the centralizing trend, if it occurred at all, was unlikely to become part of a long-term trend.  They argued that the concentration of authority in a centralized government structure was an historical trend that would continue, but that the nature of the trend must be considered and shaped in a manner most beneficial to all stakeholder governments and to public service recipients.

      Glendening and Reeves tied three very important phenomena together in their effort to explain the value of pragmatic federalism.  First, following on a strong tradition in the academic literature of questioning rigid bureaucratic approaches to policy formulation and implementation, Glendening and Reeves argued for greater reliance on informal relationships between policy actors who are guided by circumstance rather than organizational structure. Second, they favored movement towards proactive street-level policymaking and analysis whenever possible.  Finally, a growing trend towards public-private partnerships in solving problems and a shared-governance movement played an important role in shaping Glendening and Reeve’s innovative approach to thinking about American federalism.

      At the time Glendening and Reeves were writing their account of federalism, Governor Bill Clinton (D-Arkansas) was promoting a similar new governance model.   Interestingly, both Glendening and Clinton were raised in relative poverty in Florida and Arkansas, respectively.   In both cases, they had witnessed first-hand the positive role of government in shaping the lives of the least fortunate members of American society.  Both men had gone on to become prominent state-level politicians in the 1980s.   Importantly, neither forgot the role of government in their lives. They also felt that public sentiment regarding the size of the national government had more to do with the outcomes of government operations and less to do with the government’s process and policy goals.

      The decline of the cooperative federalism model was fueled in part by significant changes to methods of funding programs.   Discussed later in this chapter, funding in the form of grants-in-aid emanating from the national level to meet program goals was increasingly made in the form of block grants — revenue transfers which gave state and local governments considerable flexibility in determining specific policy goals and methods of meeting those goals.  During the Reagan years, the national government retreated in its support of many policy areas; the public need was still present, but solutions and funding were left up to leaders in state and local governments.

      Entrepreneurial-minded state and local government leaders, such as Glendening and Clinton, provide sterling examples of the practicality of pragmatic federalism, which is can be considered an innovation in public management that refines our evolving federal system. 27 The success of Democratic and Republican policy leaders alike at the state and local level in the last two decades of the 20th century offer time-tested support for a pragmatic approach to federalism—a model in which resources, goals, and public/private stakeholders and entrepreneurs are brought together to craft solutions to  priority public concerns.

2.F.IV – Non-Centralized Federalism:

      Non-centralized models of federalism can be traced to a growing skepticism over the dominant role of Congress and the national government in intergovernmental relations.   In the 1960s, Daniel Elazar wrote his now-classic account Federalism: A View from the States in which he illustrated the considerable and persisting political and social diversity present in the U.S. 28 In the 1950s and 1960s, a period where cooperative and nation-centered federalism held sway, Elazar’s analysis was in contradistinction to commonly held views of federalism that downplayed long-standing state and regional diversity.

      Non-centralized federalism tends to look to historically chronicled analysis and community-based approaches for understanding American federalism.  Working from the premise that strong democracy relies most immediately on stalwart local communities and robust public and/or private institutions, advocates for non-centralized federalism argue for a more individual-focused approach, relying on the individual consumer acting in market-transaction to solve his or her own dilemmas rather than with the community through collective decision-making.  The former approach — built on the principles of communitarianism — is closely tied to pragmatic federalism and to an historical interpretation of community-level decision-making capacity, while the latter approach is often built on classical liberalism , which emphasizes a limited role for government.

      Advocates for non-centralized federalism share a common desire to ensure that the citizen-stakeholder plays a critical role in decision-making.  In Democracy in America — a book often quoted by non-centralism advocates — Alexis de Tocqueville expresses similar concern regarding the possibility of unwisely limiting the roles of citizen and community as decision-making is centralized in the hands of professional administrators.

      Not all communities possess an equal capacity for extensive citizen stakeholder participation.  Over decades, in some cases centuries, political and social traditions slowly evolve, producing norms of participation and views about the role of citizens, government and the interchange between the two.  Elazar places these different traditions under the rubric known as political culture .  In his analysis, Elazar identifies three major categories of political and social relationships: individualistic , moralistic , and traditionalistic .

      Individualistic political culture fits well within the classical liberal tradition of non-centralized federalism.  Within individualistic political cultures, most problems are seen in terms of individual solutions — communal solutions are not highly valued.  Individualistic traditions look at most problems in terms of private property rights dilemmas.  Solutions, therefore, are viewed as being best identified through the proper transfer of rights.  For example, the individualist would see poverty as being best solved through the exchange of property:  a person’s labor (property) for a salary (property) to be used to purchase food (property).    In individualistic political cultures, non-centralized federalism would largely mean limited government at all levels and reliance on the marketplace to meet demands or solve problems.

      In moralistic political cultures, problems and solutions are viewed quite a bit differently.  Moralists tend to see problems in terms of community dilemmas that must be identified through interchange and community choice.  Solutions are proffered in an open public forum and agreement on solutions is generally seen as best determined through widespread mutual agreement.  The New England town hall meeting is often held up as a classic example of governance in a moralistic political culture.  Non-centralized federalism, therefore, is more likely to be viewed as the optimum method of creating an inclusive public dialogue about government and governing.  Moralistic political culture is horizontally organized, placing significant emphasis on the role of all individuals regardless of their social status or economic position within society.

      Traditionalistic political culture is vertically organized, which means that individuals in positions of power have greater influence in the decision-making process than individuals who hold lower political, social or economic status.   In traditionalistic political cultures, a limited view of collective decision-making excludes most citizen-stakeholder voices in the governance process.  Citizens in a traditionalistic political culture tend not to expect to play a role in governance at the state and local level—they tend to defer to the aforementioned elites.  In traditionalistic political culture, non-centralized federalism may work to the disadvantage of the mass while benefiting elites and their allies.

      According to Elazar, traditionalistic political cultures are most prominent in the American South.  While conditions have changed a great deal over the last several decades, poverty in the South and responses to poverty provide a solid example of the negative impact of traditionalistic political culture.  President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty in the 1960s uncovered the extent of political, social, and economic disparity.  Traditionalistic elites in the rural South chose to ignore poverty as an issue for reasons related to racial discrimination and contempt of elites for the lower social classes.  National government intervention was the first major step towards alleviating poverty in the South, albeit the issues of institutionalized racism and endemic poverty have not entirely faded from the political scene, either in the South or in many other areas of the country.

      Based on compelling evidence produced through political culture theory and considerable social science, moralistic political culture presents the greatest opportunity for equal access and broadly inclusive dialogue, and widely accepted choices and outcomes.  When considering conflict in relation to the non-centralized federalism model, an underlying assumption is that the scope of conflict will be largely contained to the state or local level.  In moralistic political cultures, governance is constructed in a way where support for public solutions to identified collective dilemmas is initially strong and remains strong on a consistent and prolonged basis.  Individualistic political cultures are less likely to identify problems as requiring collective action — the marketplace is seen as the provider of solutions to individual wants and needs and property rights exchange.  As a consequence, a strong central government is not a likely solution for the individualist.  Conflict in an individualistic political culture will arise over issues related to property rights exchange and are less likely to be contained at the local level.  Non-centralized federalism leads to highly biased governance choices and outcomes. Potentially, non-centralized federalism could increase conflict as citizens actively seek redress at “higher” levels of government when demands or needs are not addressed in local or state governance processes.

2.G – 21st Century Network Approaches to Federalism

      Two major conditions led to dramatic change in the character of federalism in the U.S.   First, as discussed in Chapter 1, technology has forever changed the way in which governance occurs.

Reflections on Government in the Old Days

      Stepping into a county clerk’s office only a generation ago for voter registration, the author found a single employee with index cards and two typewriters—an old manual version and the new electric model.  The sheriff’s office was not dissimilar—a Polaroid camera and flash bulbs lay on the counter for mug shots—there was a teletype machine for important information coming from the state or national level regarding criminal activity, an enormous vacuum tube contraption called the dispatch center (you didn’t dial 911, you dialed “0” and asked the operator to be transferred to the police department)—nobody really sat at the dispatch center, but a burning cigarette in an amber colored glass ash tray indicated that someone was around occasionally.  There was “The Computer” over in the corner, but nobody really knew how to use it except for the sheriff’s young daughter—she played video games on it while she waited for her father to drive her home after school.

      Computers are a central part of the governance process at all levels of government today.   Initially, computer networks were within a single office and were not connected to other networks.  With the advent of the Internet, inter-office networks have expanded exponentially and are increasingly complex — a web of communication connects the government to individuals and to the private sectors.  Technology has made it relatively inexpensive and rather easy to transmit large quantities of information very quickly between decision makers in various government offices, and in the process influence choices and create opportunities for coordination and collaboration across jurisdictions.  Inter-state and inter-local partnerships (or compacts) and agreements of understanding to coordinate efforts and goals have become a prominent aspect of 21st century federalism. 29 Building on the idea of pragmatic federalism, the rise of network-based federalism means that day-to-day governance is often circumstance-based and informal, with networks forming around problems and then quickly dissipating after solutions have been arrived at and implemented.

      A second major condition, which has led to a greater reliance on network-approaches to federalism, is the post 9/11 policy environment and the War on Terrorism .  Events related to terrorism and terrorist plots do not honor jurisdictional boundaries.  In attacking enemies, terrorist organizations often use the same technological tools that have made our lives easier—the Internet, rapid forms of transportation, and the ability to network globally.  Homeland Security policies require interagency communication and collaboration as a condition of the receipt of federal funding.  It is the case, of course, that delays in communications posed by jurisdictional squabbles can significantly reduce the ability of government at all levels to plan for and react to emergencies in a timely and effective manner.

      A related condition has been the decline of the traditional fiscal federalism relationship.  In the 1950s and 1960s, policy goals of the national government—in cooperation with state and local government —were supported with financial resources received from the federal government.  This fiscal federalism relationship meant that new policy goals were not as burdensome to state and local government in cost terms as they had been in the past.  Beginning with the Reagan and G.H. Bush presidencies, and moving forward into the Clinton, G. W. Bush and Obama eras, the monetary taps of fiscal federalism have decreased:  federal resources are now in much more limited supply.  Given these conditions, it becomes clear to state and local government leaders that network federalism is a natural solution to reducing costs — essentially, it expands the information and expert “pool” as well as places greater reliance on mutual assistance. 30

      How is network federalism different than other forms of federalism?  First, network federalism arrangements are often decentralized to the level of the individual or informal team.  Individuals may be assigned to formal organizations, but most of their work is based on highly situational informal relationships or teams that respond to circumstances.  For example, law enforcement response to riots and natural disasters is often a function of changing circumstances.  Second, the strength of coupling or formal control within and between levels of government or agencies is very limited.  Third, power is informally distributed and redistributed depending upon need rather than convention that had been based on formal vertical power distribution.

There are at least three advantages to the newly emerging model of network federalism:

• Reduced cost —while governmental units continue to overlap, collaboration means that wasteful stand-alone efforts are limited;
• Increased effectiveness —network federalism means that individuals converge around a problem based on the nature of a problem at any given moment; and
• Increased unity of purpose —as governmental units begin to work together to create mutually beneficial successes, there is a greater sense of unity, less jurisdictional squabbling and miscommunication.

      While network federalism sounds like a laudatory solution, there are at least three potential challenges that must be considered in the years to come:

• Diminished accountability —accountability at all levels of government has posed a challenge.  Informal intergovernmental relationships in network federalism means that discovering and rectifying problematic point sources is nearly i mpossible.
• Groupthink —as intergovernmental or interagency teams become more common, group members are more likely to begin to see problems and solutions in a similar manner, essentially eliminating the necessary argumentation that furnishes information about all sides of a problem. Additionally, groupthink can lead to elitist and exclusionary governance processes and outcomes.
• Centralizing trends —network federalism does not mean that all levels of government have equal resources and capacity to respond to governance issues.  The national level of government is often thought to be well-funded and highly professional in terms of personnel training and leadership.  Networks tend to form around resource providers and leaders as well as those network points where information is most effectively gathered and disseminated.  In many instances, it is likely that networks will form around national government actors while state and local actors might serve in a supporting capacity.

2.H – Federalism and the Core Dimensions of Sustainability

      Federalism can, and frequently does, work towards the accomplishment of the core goals of sustainability.  Each unit of government is interconnected to other units of government and, as cooperative and network federalism illustrate, there is a need for all of units of government to face the enduring truth:  “we’re all in it together!”    In other words, while each unit of government must consider its own capacity to achieve sustainability, there is a clear sense that working together makes sustainability more likely.    In the U.S. federal system, the social objectives dimension of sustainability is achieved through the porosity of government institutions and the multiple points of contact between citizens and overlapping units of government.  Strong social capital and the collective action of civic-minded communities are often associated with effective and adaptable government.    The economic objectives dimension sustainability is also served by federalism.   Sustainable economics means managing resources at the local level, where citizens are more likely to witness the production process at work and can better scrutinize the sustainability of the economic process in relation to negative environmental impacts produced.  Understanding the true costs and benefits of achieving what is wanted may refocus local consumer attention on which goods and services really do contribute to sustainability.   The environmental dimension of sustainability can benefit from federalism as well.  With multiple points of citizen-government interaction, federalism offers greater opportunity to raise awareness of policies that could damage environmental quality.  Additionally, local management of the environment and common resources may give citizens greater responsibility for the resources from which they collectively derive benefit—good stewardship practiced by multiple actors in a federal system of governance may serve to remind all parties involved of the many different stakeholders who benefit from well-protected environmental resources.  Finally, the institutional dimension of sustainability is well served by federalism.   Institutions operating in a sustainable future government may look and operate differently than the nation’s current paradigm built around 18th and 19th century public and private institutions constructed in far simpler times.  While the desirable values undergirding those institutions might be known—e.g., social and political equity, racial/ethnic/gender equality, intergenerational justice—effective institutional designs may be less understood.  For example, network federalism promises to take governance in new and exciting directions; yet, the exact nature of those new and exciting directions will be shaped by the technology of tomorrow.  Federalism offers the opportunity to experiment with different institutional designs, to determine what works best, when, and for what purpose.

Federalism: What Can I Do?

According to public opinion polls conducted by Gallup, a majority of Americans are unaware of the role of the federal government in their local school districts, knowing little is anything about important laws such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002  ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/1612/Education.aspx ). Because education is such an important and expensive function with federal, state and school district levels of governance involved through regulation and finance, informed participation in school board meetings and voting on school funding necessitates some investigation.

1. Contact your local school district to see how federal, state and local governments are involved in financing education.

2. Attend your local school board meeting to learn about pressing issues facing the school district.

3. Contact your state legislators and state department of education to learn how federal government regulations, such as the No Child Left Behind Act, affect state education policy.

4. Contact a K-12 teacher in your local school district to discuss how federal, state and local policies affect how they teach in their own classroom.

For general information go to: “Education and Federalism,” The Nelson A. Rockefeller School of Government, State University of New York: http://www.rockinst.org/education/federalism.aspx

2.I – Conclusion: Conditions for Sustainable Intergovernmental Relationships

      Readers of this book who are preparing for careers in state or local government or who will work closely with government in one capacity or another will likely deal directly with intergovernmentalism.  Intergovernmental relationships are important in the U.S. because the federal model is not clearly defined.  In a political system where powers are separated between governmental units at national, state and local levels, questions of proper jurisdictional authority will certainly arise in the course of carrying out one’s duties or conducting one’s business affairs.  One noteworthy strength of the U.S. model of federalism lies in the overlapping responsibilities shared by a whole host of governmental units, entities which must cooperate in order to address localized and/or regional problems affecting their constituents.  The overlapping responsibilities and duties can be both a source of angst and a source of strength, bringing a diversity of experience and resources with networks of contacts.  Network federalism has proven to be the more accepted view of U.S. federalism, and is the source of cooperative federalism or intergovernmentalism.

      According to research on sustainable federal systems carried out in the international context, those federal systems that are based in constitutionalism (see Chapter 5) and feature defined powers of each layer of government, are 1. reflective of cultural and geographic diversity, 2. have democratic institutions, and 3. provide adequate resources for governance are the most institutionally sustainable systems. 31   One of the most important elements of successful intergovernmental relationships in the U.S. context pertains to resources.  Approximately 70 percent of a typical public agency’s budget goes to salaries for employees.  If proportional weight is any guide, then the most important resource that money buys is people’s time, knowledge, skills, and abilities.  Another important resource purchased by money is the infrastructure of a governmental body and the tangible goods and services needed to produce a desired governmental outcome.  When a county wishes to establish a public health office, money will purchase the time and professional skills of physicians, nurses, and medical supplies needed to accomplish the public health function.  If, however, the state or national government mandates certain health practices — such mandates frequently shape the relationship between governmental entities — then commensurate resources are required to meet the expectations established by those mandates.  A successful intergovernmental relationship often requires the transfer of funds from one unit of government to another.  That being said, some careful observers of American government and some state officials question the amount of federal spending and aid they receive in relation to the amount of federal taxes paid by the citizens and businesses of their state.

      The data reported in Table 2.1 indicate wide disparity among states with respect to how much is paid in federal taxes versus how much is returned in federal spending and aid.  Of course, the amount of money collected and spent by the federal government is related to many factors including, but not limited to: the salary levels of workers in high income states leading to higher federal government revenues through income taxes and other fees; the presence of higher levels of poverty leading to more federal spending on poverty programs and, of course, the presence of strong and influential senior elected officials in Congress steering resources back home to their own state (e.g., “ pork barrel ” projects and the inclusion of earmarks in agency allocations).

Table 2.1 Federal Tax Burden and Expenditures by State—2015

      People, themselves, are important resources; however, the structure of the institutions for which people work, as well as the working environment and location do more to shape the effectiveness of workers.  Individuals working in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for instance, are often used to working in a particular agency setting with a unique organizational culture .  The culture of an agency impacts the disposition of individuals.  Professionalism is also an important element in intergovernmental relationships.  In terms of elected officials, professionalism is reflected in the level of knowledge, experience and personal and administrative staff support available.  Administrative personnel at different levels of government may vary in terms of their experience, level of education, salaries, and training; these are all quite important characteristics of public sector administrative professionalism.

      Finally, as the literature on sustainable communities suggests, the social and economic conditions under which a particular level of government or an agency of government operates has a significant impact on intergovernmental relationships.  When the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers arrives in a locality intent on building a dam for flood control or power generation, the conditions under which state or local governments’ operate will have an impact upon relationships with the Army Corps of Engineers.

      While conditions cannot be made uniform across levels of government or jurisdictions, successful federalism requires that political and administrative entities engaged in intergovernmental work come to terms with these differences in working conditions in order to maintain effectiveness and professionalism.  Often, variations in these elements of difference become a source of strength in the intergovernmental enterprise as creative synergies are discovered and innovative solutions to difficult problems are crafted.  Alternatively, those intergovernmental relationships that ignore these differences or involve the choice of a mistrusting or intensely competitive relationship often produce intergovernmental failure.

Classical Liberalism Communitarism Confederal Systems Reserved Powers and the 10th Amendment Cooperative Federalism Dual Federalism Fiscal Federalism Progressivism Public Goods Individualistic Political Culture Moralistic Political Culture Point Sources Political Culture Pork Barrel Mandates Organization Culture Traditionalistic Political Culture

Discussion Questions

1. Why was federalism adopted in the United States? Are the reasons leading to its adoption still relevant in the twenty-first century?

2. Based on your reading, what are the various models of federalism that developed over time, and what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of each type?

3. In what policy areas should states have more authority vis-à-vis the national government (e.g., social policy such as medical marijuana, abortion, death penalty, K-12 education standards)? In what policy areas should the national government have more authority vis-à-vis the state governments?

1. S. Krislov, “American Federalism as American Exceptionalism,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 31(2001): 9-26.

A. Wildavsky, “A Bias toward Federalism: Confronting the Conventional Wisdom on the Delivery of Governmental Services,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 6(1976):  95-120.

J. Yarbrough, “Federalism in the Foundation and Preservation of the American Republic,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 6(1976): 43-60.

2. S. Schechter, “Federalism and Community in Historical Perspective,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 5(1975): 1-14.

R.L. Watts, “Daniel J. Elazar: Comparative Federalism and Post-Statism,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 30(2000): 155-168.

3. Ibid, Watts, p. 161.

4. J.F. Zimmerman, “National-State Relations: Cooperative Federalism in the Twentieth Century,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 31(2001): 15-30.

5. J.P. Greene, “The Background to the Articles of Confederation,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 12(4) (1982), 15-44.

Jack Rakove, “The Legacy of the Articles of Confederation,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 12(1982): 45-66.

6. See S. Lakoff, “Between Either/or and More or Less: Sovereignty versus Autonomy under Federalism,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 24(1994): 63-78.

7. J.R. Alexander, “State Sovereignty in the Federal System: Constitutional Protections under the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 26(1986): 1-15.

8. For a related discussion see: Ostrom, “The Study of Federalism at Work,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 4(1974): 1-17.

9. C. Tiebout, “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures,” Journal of Political Economy 64(1956): 416-424.

10. D. Osborne and T. Gaebler, Reinventing Government (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992).

11. D.B. Rosenthal and J.M. Hoefler, “Competing Approaches to the Study of American Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 19(1989): 1-23.

12. J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1995).

13. V.C. Jackson, “State Sovereignty and the Eleventh Amendment in the U.S. Supreme Court: The 1988 Term,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 22(1992): 39-54.

14. The national government tended to focus primary concern in exercising its powers enumerated in the Constitution. One important exception to this general point was the passage of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 , which provided for federal government support the development of grammar schools for the provision of basic education. The Northwest Ordinance established an important precedent for the national government; early on, the national government undertook to legislate for the provision of some “public goods” (societal benefits) that states could not fully consider.

15. In many ways, the history of dominant dual federalism reflects Hamilton’s conjecture in Federalist Paper #36 that in a federal system with weak central government powers, powerful state governments may work to advance their own agenda to the detriment of weaker or smaller states and, ultimately, led to the collapse of the federal system as originally instituted.

16. B. Allen, “Alexis de Tocqueville on the Covenanted Tradition of American Federal Democracy,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 28(1998): 1-23.

17. The cooperative federalism model was helped along by major reforms at all three levels of government and within the branches of government, particularly at the national level. Campaigns gave voice to the reformers opinions in a wide audience, and elections produced progressively-minded political leaders. The news media and public interest groups advanced a progressive policy agenda, detailing the social and economic issues to be addressed at all levels of government.  The judiciary focused greater attention on the basic rights and liberties guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, and began the evolutionary process of applying, through legal precedent, nationally-guaranteed rights to public policy making occurring at that state and local level.

18. D.B. Walker, “American Federalism from Johnson to Bush,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 21(1991): 105-119.

19. P.E. Peterson, “The New Politics of Federalism,” Spectrum: The Journal of State Government 78(2005): 5-7.

20. See also K. Caruson, S. ManManus, M. Kohen and T. Watson, “Homeland Security Preparedness: The Rebirth of Regionalism,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism , 34(2005): 143-168.

21. Nathan (1975) discusses how top down federalism can, through the use of resource provision stipulations and mandates, impact the structural arrangements of state and local government. Structural change may have a more lasting and consequential impact on government than simple resource provision that does not require structural changes. Richard P. Nathan, “The New Federalism versus the Emerging New Structuralism,”  Publius: The Journal of Federalism 5(1975): 111-129.

22. R. Barrales, “Federalism in the Bush Administration,” Spectrum: The Journal of State Government 74(2001): 5-6.

D.C. Menzel, “The Katrina Aftermath: A Failure of Federalism or Leadership?” Public Administration Review 66(2006): 808-812.

23. C. Rothfeld, “Federalism in a Conservative Supreme Court,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 22(1992): 21-31.

24. D.B. Rosenthal and J.M. Hoefler, “Competing Approaches to the Study of American Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 19(1989): 1-23.

25. Ibid, p. 7.

26. P.N. Glendening and Mavis M. Reeves, Pragmatic Federalism (Pacific Palisades, CA: Palisades Publishers, 1984).

See also: P.N. Glendening, “Pragmatic Federalism and State-Federal Partnerships,” Spectrum: The Journal of State Government 74(2001): 6-8.

27. See Osborne and Gaebler, 1992, op. cit. (see reference 10).

28. D.J. Elazar, Federalism: A View from the States (New York: Crowell, 1966).

29. J.J. Montjoy, “National Center for Interstate Compacts: A New Initiative,” Spectrum: The Journal of State Government 77(2004): 8-11.

J.F. Zimmerman, “Trends in Interstate Relations,” Spectrum: The Journal of State Government 77(2004): 5-11.

D.M. Sprague, “Priority Focus for 2005:  Interstate Cooperation,” Spectrum: The Journal of State Government 77(2004): 3.

30. R.L. Cole and D.A. Taebel, “The New Federalism: Promises, Programs, and Performance,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 16(1986): 3-10.

T. Conlan, “From Cooperatives to Opportunistic Federalism: Reflections on the Half-Century Anniversary of the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,” Public Administration Review 66(2006): 663-676.

P. Eisinger, “Imperfect Federalism: The Intergovernmental Partnership for Homeland Security,” Public Administration Review 66(2006): 537-545.

J. Kincaid, “The Crisis in Fiscal Federalism,” Spectrum : The Journal of State Government 76(2003): 5-9.

31. M. Filippov, P. Ordeshook, and O. Shvetsova. Designing Federalism: A Theory of Self-Sustainable Federal Institutions (Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 2004).

P. Hobson, and F. St. Hilaire, Reforming Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements: Toward Sustainable Federalism (Montreal: The Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1993) .

State and Local Government and Politics Copyright © 2018 by Christopher A. Simon, Brent S. Steel & Nicholas P. Lovrich is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

14.1 State Power and Delegation

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Explain how the balance of power between national and state governments shifted with the drafting and ratification of the Constitution
• Identify parts of the Constitution that grant power to the national government and parts that support states’ rights
• Identify two fiscal policies by which the federal government exerts control over state policy decisions

When the framers met at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, they had many competing tensions to resolve. For instance, they had to consider how citizens would be represented in the national government, given population differences between the states. In addition, they had to iron out differences of opinion about where to concentrate political power. Would the legislative branch have more authority than the executive branch, and would state governments retain as many rights as they had enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation?

Here we look at the manner in which power was divided between the national and state governments, first under the Articles of Confederation and then under the U.S. Constitution. As you read, observe the shifting power dynamic between the national government and subnational governments at the state and local level.

STATE POWER AT THE FOUNDING

Before the ratification of the Constitution, the state governments’ power far exceeded that held by the national government. This distribution of authority was the result of a conscious decision and was reflected in the structure and framework of the Articles of Confederation . The national government was limited, lacking both a president to oversee domestic and foreign policy and a system of federal courts to settle disputes between the states.

Restricting power at the national level gave the states a great deal of authority over and independence from the federal government. Each state legislature appointed its own Congressional representatives, subject to recall by the states, and each state was given the authority to collect taxes from its citizens. But limiting national government power was not the delegates’ only priority. They also wanted to prevent any given state from exceeding the authority and independence of the others. The delegates ultimately worked to create a level playing field between the individual states that formed the confederation. For instance, the Articles of Confederation could not be amended without the approval of each state, and each state received one vote in Congress, regardless of population. 1

It wasn’t long after the Articles of Confederation were established that cracks began to appear in their foundation. Congress struggled to conduct business and to ensure the financial credibility of the new country’s government. One difficulty was its inability to compel the individual states to cover their portion of Revolutionary War debt. Attempts to recoup these funds through the imposition of tariffs were vetoed by states with a vested financial interest in their failure. 2

Given the inherent weaknesses in the system set up by the Articles, in 1787 the delegates came together once again to consider amendments to the Articles, but they ended up instead considering a new design for the government ( Figure 14.2 ). To produce more long-term stability, they needed to establish a more effective division of power between the federal and state governments. Ultimately, the framers settled on a system in which power would be shared: The national government had its core duties, the state governments had their duties, and other duties were shared equally between them. Today this structure of power sharing is referred to as federalism .

The Constitution allocated more power to the federal government by effectively adding two new branches: a president to head the executive branch and the Supreme Court to head the judicial branch. The specific delegated or expressed powers granted to Congress and to the president were clearly spelled out in the body of the Constitution under Article I, Section 8, and Article II , Sections 2 and 3.

In addition to these expressed powers, the national government was given implied powers that, while not clearly stated, are inferred. These powers stem from the elastic clause in Article I , Section 8, of the Constitution, which provides Congress the authority “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the Foregoing powers.” This statement has been used to support the federal government’s playing a role in controversial policy matters, such as the provision of healthcare, the expansion of power to levy and collect taxes, and regulation of interstate commerce. Finally, Article VI declared that the U.S. Constitution and any laws or treaties made in connection with that document were to supersede constitutions and laws made at the state level. This clause, better known as the supremacy clause , makes clear that any conflict in law between the central (or federal) government and the regional (or state) governments is typically resolved in favor of the central government.

Although the U.S. Constitution clearly allocated more power to the federal government than had been the case under the Articles of Confederation, the framers still respected the important role of the states in the new government. The states were given a host of powers independent of those enjoyed by the national government. As one example, they now had the power to establish local governments and to account for the structure, function, and responsibilities of these governments within their state constitutions. This gave states sovereignty, or supreme and independent authority, over county, municipal, school and other special districts.

States were also given the power to ratify amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Throughout U.S. history, all amendments to the Constitution except one have been proposed by Congress and then ratified by either three-fourths of the state legislatures or three-fourths of the state conventions called for ratification purposes. This process ensures that the states have a voice in any changes to the Constitution. The Twenty-First Amendment (repealing the Eighteenth Amendment’s prohibition on alcohol) was the only amendment ratified using the state ratifying convention method. Although this path has never been taken, the U.S. Constitution even allows for state legislatures to take a direct and very active role in the amendment proposal process. If at least two-thirds of the state legislatures apply for a national convention, constitutional amendments can be proposed at the convention.

Finding a Middle Ground

Debating the need for a national convention.

As of 2020, fifteen states had passed applications to hold a national convention. These states are pushing for the opportunity to propose a constitutional amendment requiring the national government to balance its budget in the same way most states are mandated to do. For a national convention to be held, at least thirty-four states must submit applications. Thus, nineteen more states would be needed to hold the first national convention in U.S. history. 3

Proponents see the convention as an opportunity to propose an amendment they argue is necessary to reduce federal spending and promote fiscal responsibility. The exploding Federal budget deficit adds to these concerns and may create more support for such a process. If not, proponents nevertheless believe the growing roster of states favoring a convention may encourage Congress to take action on its own.

Opponents feel a balanced budget amendment is not realistic given the need for emergency spending in the event of an economic recession. They also worry about the spending cuts and/or tax increases the federal government would have to impose to consistently balance the budget. Some states fear a balanced-budget requirement would limit the federal government’s ability to provide them with continued fiscal support. Finally, other opponents argue that states balance only their operating budgets, while themselves assuming massive amounts of debt for capital projects.

But perhaps the greatest fear is of the unknown. A national convention is unprecedented, and there is no limit to the number of amendments delegates to such a convention might propose. However, such changes would still need to be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or state conventions before they could take effect.

What are the potential benefits of a national constitutional convention? What are the risks? Are the benefits worth the risks? Why or why not?

Despite the Constitution’s broad grants of state authority, one of the central goals of the Anti-Federalists, a group opposed to several components of the Constitution, was to preserve state government authority, protect the small states, and keep government power concentrated in the hands of the people. For this reason, the Tenth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to create a class of powers, known as reserved powers , exclusive to state governments. The amendment specifically reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In essence, if the Constitution does not decree that an activity should be performed by the national government and does not restrict the state government from engaging in it, then the state is seen as having the power to perform the function. In other words, the power is reserved to the states.

Besides reserved powers, the states also retained concurrent powers , or responsibilities shared with the national government. As part of this package of powers, the state and federal governments each have the right to collect income tax from their citizens and corporate tax from businesses. They also share responsibility for building and maintaining the network of interstates and highways and for making and enforcing laws ( Figure 14.3 ). For instance, many state governments have laws regulating motorcycle and bicycle helmet use, banning texting and driving, and prohibiting driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

THE EVOLUTION OF STATE POWER

Throughout U.S. history, the national and state governments have battled for dominance over the implementation of public policy and the funding of important political programs. Upon taking office in 1933 during the Great Depression (1929–1939), President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated a series of legislative proposals to boost the economy and put people back to work. The enacted programs allowed the federal government to play a broader role in revitalizing the economy while greatly expanding its power. However, this result was not without its critics. Initially, the Supreme Court overturned several key legislative proposals passed under Roosevelt, reasoning that they represented an overreach of presidential authority and were unconstitutional, such as Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States . 4 Eventually, however, the Supreme Court shifted direction to reflect public opinion, which was decisively behind the president and the need for government intervention in a time of economic turmoil. 5

Just three decades later, during the 1964 presidential election campaign, incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a “ War on Poverty ,” instituting a package of Great Society programs designed to improve circumstances for lower-income Americans across the nation. The new programs included Medicare and Medicaid , which are health insurance programs for seniors and low-income citizens respectively, and the food stamp program, which provides food assistance to low-income families. These initiatives greatly expanded the role of the federal government in providing a social safety net. 6 State and local governments became partners in their implementation and also came to rely on the financial support they received from the federal government in the form of program grants. 7

As the federal government’s role in policy creation expanded, so did its level of spending. Spending by the federal government began to surpass that of state and local governments shortly after 1940 ( Figure 14.4 ). It spiked temporarily during the Great Depression and again during World War II, resuming a slow climb with the implementation of Johnson’s Great Society programs noted above.

Growing financial resources gave the federal government increased power over subnational governments. This increased power was because it could use categorical grants to dictate the terms and conditions state governments had to meet to qualify for financial assistance in a specific policy area. Over time, the federal government even began to require state and local governments to comply with legislative and executive authorizations when funding was not attached. These requests from the federal government are referred to as unfunded mandates and are a source of dissatisfaction to political actors at the state and local level. To provide more transparency to state and local governments and reduce the federal government’s use of mandates, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was passed in 1995. This act requires the Congressional Budget Office to provide information about the cost of any proposed government mandate that exceeds a specified threshold before the bill can be considered in Congress. 8

Link to Learning

Explore the latest news on federal mandates at the Congressional Budget Office and the Catalog of Cost Shifts to States at the National Conference of State Legislatures website.

Despite the national government’s power to pass and fund policy that affects lower-level governments, states still have gained considerable headway since the late twentieth century. For instance, with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in 1996, known as the welfare reform bill, states were given great discretion over the provision of welfare. The federal government reduced its level of monetary support for the program and, in exchange, the states gained more authority over its implementation. States were able to set more restrictive work requirements, to place caps on the number of family members who could receive aid, and to limit the length of time someone could qualify for government assistance. 9

Since then, states have been granted the flexibility to set policy across a number of controversial policy areas. For instance, a wide array of states require parental consent for abortions performed on minors, ban abortions completely or after a certain number of weeks of pregnancy, or require patients to undergo an ultrasound before the procedure. As another example, currently, almost half the states allow for the use of medical marijuana and sixteen more states have fully legalized it, despite the fact that this practice stands in contradiction to federal law that prohibits the use and distribution of marijuana.

For more on these two controversial policy areas, explore ”An Overview of State Abortion Laws” and ”State Medical Marijuana Laws.”

Today, it is not uncommon to see a patchwork of legal decisions granting states more discretion in some policy areas, such as marijuana use, while providing the federal government more authority in others, such as same-sex marriage. Decisions about which level controls policy can reflect the attitudes of government officials and the public, political ideology and the strategic advantage of setting policy on a state-by-state basis, and the necessity of setting uniform policy in the face of an economic downturn or unanticipated national security threat. What has not changed over time is the central role of the U.S. Supreme Court’s views in determining how power should be distributed in a federalist system.

POWER AT THE SUBSTATE LEVEL

The U.S. Constitution is silent on the dispersion of power between states and localities within each state. The fact that states are mentioned specifically and local jurisdictions are not has traditionally meant that power independent of the federal government resides first with the state. Through their own constitutions and statutes, states decide what to require of local jurisdictions and what to delegate. This structure represents the legal principle of Dillon’s Rule , named for Iowa Supreme Court justice John F. Dillon . Dillon argued that state actions trump those of the local government and have supremacy. 10 In this view, cities and towns exist at the pleasure of the state, which means the state can step in and dissolve them or even take them over. Indeed, most states have supremacy clauses over local governments in their constitutions.

However, for practical purposes, state and local governments must work together to ensure that citizens receive adequate services. Given the necessity of cooperation, many states have granted local governments some degree of autonomy and given them discretion to make policy or tax decisions. 11 This added independence is called home rule , and the transfer of power is typically spelled out within a charter . Charters are similar to state constitutions: they provide a framework and a detailed accounting of local government responsibilities and areas of authority. Potential conflicts can come up over home rule. For example, in 2015, the State of Texas overruled a fracking ban imposed by the City of Denton. 12

Like state governments, local governments prioritize spending on building and maintaining the transportation infrastructure, supporting educational institutions, promoting community protection, and funding healthcare. 13 As shown in Figure 14.5 , local governments, just like state governments, receive a sizeable chunk of their revenue from grants and transfers from other levels of the government. The next biggest source of revenue for local governments is property tax collections.

Property taxes can be assessed on homes, land, and businesses. The local government’s reliance on property tax revenue can be problematic for a number of reasons. First, unlike sales tax, the collection of which is spaced out in small increments across multiple transactions, property tax is collected in one or two lump sums and is therefore highly visible and unpopular. 14 In fact, in response to tax rate increases, many states have placed legal or constitutional limits on regional governments’ ability to raise property taxes. The trend began in California with the 1978 passage of Proposition 13 . This citizen-driven initiative capped the real estate tax at 1 percent of the cash value of property and stopped the practice of reassessing properties for tax purposes whenever a home in the neighborhood was sold. 15 After its passage, a number of other states followed suit, making it more difficult for states to reap the rewards of sharp increases in the market value of property. And, of course, not reassessing properties for tax purposes unless a home is sold leads to massive disparities in amounts paid by neighbors living in similar houses in the same neighborhood. 16

Another drawback to local governments’ reliance on property tax is that property values vary with the economic health of a given area, the quality of school districts, and the overall desirability of a state, municipality, or county. Significant parcels of land in many cities are also tax-exempt, including property occupied by colleges, churches, and other nonprofit organizations. Boston is a good example as almost 50 percent of the assessed value of property is tax-exempt. 17 College towns face the same challenge.

When the mortgage crisis began in 2007, property values decreased in many areas of the country, and many homeowners defaulted on their mortgages because their homes were now worth less than they had borrowed to buy them. With the decline in property values, local governments faced a loss in tax revenue at the same time states were cutting back on aid; tax collections were also down because of economic conditions and the inability to derive income tax from internet sales. A number of municipalities filed for bankruptcy in the face of fiscal distress during the economic recession. Perhaps the best known municipality was Detroit, Michigan, which filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy in 2013 ( Figure 14.6 ).

Detroit filed for bankruptcy due to massive debt obligations and demands for repayment that it could not meet due to a perfect storm of economic and democratic factors. The city owed money to investors who had loaned it money, and it had liabilities resulting from its failure to fulfill its pension and healthcare obligations to city workers. The bankruptcy allowed the city time to develop an exit strategy and negotiate with creditors and union representatives in an effort to restructure its debt load. 18 Indeed, Detroit recently emerged from bankruptcy and has started to rebuild economically.

Detroit’s fiscal condition only highlights the unique challenges municipalities face. Local governments have to provide many of the same services as state and national governments, but they are often constrained by the boundaries the state prescribes. They may not have the authority to raise revenue above a certain threshold, and they do not have the ability to pass expenses on to another level of government because they lack sovereignty.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Glen Krutz, Sylvie Waskiewicz, PhD
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: American Government 3e
• Publication date: Jul 28, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/14-1-state-power-and-delegation

© Jan 5, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

State and Local Government

Federalism, the sharing of powers between the states and the national government, is one of the most important structural features of the United States constitutional order. Properly arranged, the national government will secure the rights of the people. As Madison noted in Federalist No. 51 (1788), “the different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” However, controversy has existed since the Founding about exactly how to divide these powers. Although the Continental Congress had administered the Revolutionary War, in 1787 the states considered themselves sovereign. They were thus hesitant to relinquish much of their power and independence to the national government. Indeed, the first version of a governing document for the new United States of America, the Articles of Confederation, respected the “sovereignty, freedom and independence” of the states. This made a truly national government unworkable.

Unease about national power as opposed to state sovereignty permeated the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution itself, and the ratification process. During the Convention, the delegates vigorously debated how to give the national government sufficient energy to defend and manage the country while leaving important powers with the states. The Constitution, in Article IV, addresses the states as separate political entities. In state ratifying conventions, there were significant disagreements about the amount of power that the states should retain. These disputes contributed to what would become the Tenth Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” (The United States Constitution, Tenth Amendment, 1791).

These concerns about national versus state powers came about, in part, because in colonial America, most people had contact with government only through local officials. Americans were accustomed to viewing their government on a small, local level. Even today, the level of government that predominantly affects citizens’ day-to-day lives – through their public schools, roads, and police and fire departments – is local.

In the Constitution, the separation of duties and distribution of power was not new; rather, it was a reflection of what the Framers had already practiced at the local level. The structure of the national government mirrors that of state and local governments. Municipalities generally have mayors, city councils, and municipal courts. Likewise, states have governors, legislative assemblies, and judiciaries.

According to Articles I, II, and IV of the Constitution, as well as the Tenth Amendment, the states retain considerable power to correlate with important state responsibilities.

Although state and national government have parallel structures, their powers are divided and intended to serve as a check on each other. According to Articles I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution, as well as the Tenth Amendment, the states retain considerable power to correlate with important state responsibilities. The states are entrusted with the authority to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people. In addition, elections for national office are administered through state regulations and local precincts.

Elections are also an area in which the Framers aimed to counter the dangers of a pure democracy. In a pure democracy, insufficient attention might be given to the rights of the minority. The Constitution was designed to protect states from these dangers both through the makeup of the Senate and through the Electoral College. In the national legislature, each state has two senators. In this way, the Senate provides a way for states with small populations to protect their interests more effectively than in the House, where representation is determined proportionally by population. Similarly, in the case of election of the president, if only the popular vote (a single vote by each person) were counted, then residents of those states with the heaviest population would frequently determine the outcome of presidential elections. This could leave the people of less populated states with little voice in their own government. Instead, with the Electoral College, each state’s electoral vote is determined by the number of its members in the House of Representatives plus two for its senators. Even the states with the smallest population have three electors. This helps to mitigate the Founders’ concerns about “tyranny of the majority.”

The principle of federalism guarantees that, while some power rests with the national government, state and local governments still retain considerable power, especially over their local concerns.

Ideally, this structure motivates citizens’ interest and involvement in public affairs and promotes among the American people civic competence and responsiveness. In addition, federalism fosters local and regional policy experimentation due to local and regional influences. As a result, regulations vary from state to state, and individual states can serve as testing grounds for new solutions to citizens’ concerns. Because state-based policy reform adapts to local circumstances and preferences, innovative state programs can pave the way for policy recommendations in other states.

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison unsuccessfully argued that the United States Congress should have the power to veto state laws. Today, both Madison and his critics might be surprised by the degree to which the federal government can check or influence actions at the state and local level. Among the factors that have contributed to the expansion of federal influence are the Fourteenth Amendment, which explicitly limits state powers, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of both the Necessary and Proper and the Commerce Clauses in landmark Supreme Court cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), and Wickard v. Filburn (1942).

In the nineteenth century, debate raged over two doctrines, interposition and nullification, that held that states can declare federal laws unconstitutional. Nullification goes further than interposition by declaring that the law in question will not be enforced in the state. These doctrines ultimately were doomed by their unconstitutionality. In an 1833 letter, Madison explained that secession was a violation of the compact formed by the states in joining the union:

“Many seem to have lost sight of the great principle that compact is the basis and essence of free Govt. and that no right to disregard it belongs to a party till released from it by causes of which the other parties have an equal right to judge”(James Madison to Nicholas P. Trist, January 18, 1833).

Regarding nullification, Madison wrote in an 1834 letter, that it “has the effect of putting powder under the Constitution and Union, and a match in the hand of every party to blow them up at pleasure” (James Madison to Edward Coles, August 28, 1834). Nearly thirty years before the Civil War, Madison had prophetically warned that implementation of either secession or nullification would lead to “disastrous consequences.”

While warning of the dangers of the nullification doctrine, the Founders held that the people and the states have a responsibility to be vigilant against federal overreach. This vigilance requires them to employ petitions, protests, and instructions to political representatives, even seeking the revision of the Constitution itself, when the federal government exceeds its rightful powers. In Federalist No. 26 (1787), Alexander Hamilton wrote that in instances when the national government abuses its power, state legislatures should “sound the alarm to the people,” to serve as “jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens.” Later, Madison and Thomas Jefferson protested against the limitations on speech and press included in the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 when they wrote the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. They urged that these states call on other states to dispute – through the legislative process – the laws’ restrictions on essential liberties.

Controversy continues regarding the appropriate division of power between state and national government. However, that the Founders agreed on was the wisdom of dividing power both among and within governments. They considered the federal system to be a critical part of the American constitutional order. This is the “essence of free government” to which leading Founders dedicated their lives.

Related Content

From the Founding generation to the present day, controversy continues regarding the proper division of power between state and national government. What the Founders did not find debatable was the wisdom of dividing power both among and within governments. In short, they considered the federal system to be a critical part of the American constitutional order.

• Lesson Plans
• Teacher's Guides
• Media Resources

The Federalist Debates: Balancing Power Between State and Federal Governments

Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

Library of Congress

This series of activities introduces students to one of the most hotly debated issues during the formation of the American government -- how much power the federal government should have  — or alternatively, how much liberty states and citizens should have. The lesson begins by tracing the U.S. federal system of government to its roots, established by America's Founding Fathers in the late 18th century, highlighting the controversial issue of state sovereignty versus federal power. Students compare the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, analyzing why weaknesses in the former led to the creation of the latter. Then they examine the resulting system of government formed by the Constitution, investigating the relationship between federal and state governments as they exist today. Finally, students reflect back on history and argue whether they believe Hamilton or Jefferson had the more enduring vision for America.

Guiding Questions

How should power be distributed between states and the federal government for a successful democracy?

What are the pros and cons of state sovereignty vs. federalism, as argued by the Founding Fathers?

Learning Objectives

Examine the differences and similarities between state and federal governments and their functions, structures, and powers.

Evaluate the arguments forwarded by Federalists and the Anti-Federalists regarding the proper role of government. 

Construct a position regarding federalism based on analysis of primary sources and your own evaluation of the proper role of government. 

Lesson Plan Details

At the same time the thirteen original colonies drafted the Declaration of Independence to announce their intended separation from England, they also wrote the Articles of Confederation to define their relationship with each other as a joint entity. The Articles served to unify the colonies through the Revolution, but as the new states tried to recover from the war and move ahead as a nation, the Articles of Confederation proved too weak to be effective. As the Library of Congress article " To Form a More Perfect Union " explains, "With the passage of time, weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation became apparent; Congress commanded little respect and no support from state governments anxious to maintain their power. Congress could not raise funds, regulate trade, or conduct foreign policy without the voluntary agreement of the states. Recognizing the need to improve the government, Congress tried to strengthen the Articles, but problems persisted."

Essentially, the Congress could not raise money from the states, and thus there was no budget for the collective governing body. Thus, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was convened. "To Form a More Perfect Union" summarizes the cause and result of this convention: "The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called to revise the ailing Articles of Confederation. However, the Convention soon abandoned the Articles, drafting a new Constitution with a much stronger national government. Nine states had to approve the Constitution before it could go into effect. After a long and often bitter debate, eleven states ratified the Constitution, which instituted a new form of government for the United States."

The debate was lively and heated and largely centered around how much power the federal government should have. Two Founding Fathers who represented opposing sides were Alexander Hamilton, who argued for a strong national government with James Madison and John Jay in the seminal Federalist Papers , and Thomas Jefferson, who favored a weaker central government and more power resting with individual states. Behind their philosophies were their different perspectives on human nature: Jefferson was an idealist who believed in the inherent good of humanity, and Hamilton was a pragmatist who was more cynical about trusting people to do the right thing. These men and others spent months deliberating about how much centralized government was the right amount for a functioning democracy. The issue was particularly salient because the states had just won independence from a government they considered too controlling, in which decisions were made about the colonists' lives and finances without involving those affected. Thus, there was a strong reaction against a government far removed from those being governed and their concerns, which differed significantly among the colonies. Nonetheless, a government that could not even raise enough money to support its own work could do little good for its people.

Eventually, the Constitution was developed through much deliberation, compromise, and commitment to democratic ideals. The Congress approved the Constitution in 1787, and it was ratified in 1788 by the ninth state (New Hampshire), the final approval needed to put it into effect. This document established the structure of our democratic government as it still stands today. The first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights , were proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1791.

NCSS.D2.His.1.9-12. Evaluate how historical events and developments were shaped by unique circumstances of time and place as well as broader historical contexts.

NCSS.D2.His.2.9-12. Analyze change and continuity in historical eras.

NCSS.D2.His.3.9-12. Use questions generated about individuals and groups to assess how the significance of their actions changes over time and is shaped by the historical context.

NCSS.D2.His.4.9-12. Analyze complex and interacting factors that influenced the perspectives of people during different historical eras.

NCSS.D2.His.5.9-12. Analyze how historical contexts shaped and continue to shape people’s perspectives.

NCSS.D2.His.6.9-12. Analyze the ways in which the perspectives of those writing history shaped the history that they produced.

NCSS.D2.His.12.9-12. Use questions generated about multiple historical sources to pursue further inquiry and investigate additional sources.

NCSS.D2.His.14.9-12. Analyze multiple and complex causes and effects of events in the past.

NCSS.D2.His.15.9-12. Distinguish between long-term causes and triggering events in developing a historical argument.

NCSS.D2.His.16.9-12. Integrate evidence from multiple relevant historical sources and interpretations into a reasoned argument about the past.

Begin by reading the lesson in its entirety. Teaching this lesson requires a basic understanding of the period of history during which the U.S. government was established (roughly between 1776 and 1791).

For further background on the Founding Fathers, Founding Documents, and establishment of a new democratic nation, you may consult the following resources:

• "Constitution of the United States—A History,"  available through America's Founding Documents at the National Archives website.
• "To Form a More Perfect Union," available from the Library of Congress .
• The U.S. Constitution , available through  America's Founding Documents  at the National Archives website.
• The Articles of Confederation , available through EDSITEment-reviewed resource The Avalon Project at Yale Law School

You will need to choose which resources to use and how to teach the activities based on the particulars of your situation, including access to computers/Internet as well as the reading/writing levels and background knowledge that your students bring to the lesson. Some activities are better suited for younger students and others are more appropriate for older students. Before teaching, make copies of any handouts you will distribute to students and make sure necessary equipment is working.

Activity 1. Perfecting the Union: From the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution

Ask students to read a brief overview of the period of American history between the Articles of Confederation (drafted in 1776 and approved in 1781) and the Constitution (drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788), which replaced the original Articles with a stronger federal government after much debate. Depending on students' reading levels, the following documents might serve as a good overview:

• " The Voting Record of the Constitutional Convention " (Click on "Read More"), available from the National Archives.
• " To Form A More Perfect Union " (particularly the sections "Identifying Defects in the Confederation" and "Creating a Constitution") available from the Library of Congress.

Next, students should read and compare the Articles of Confederation (the first plan for American government) with the U.S. Constitution (the final plan for American government). Print the Articles of Confederation and the original U.S. Constitution (see print-friendly version). Divide the class into an even number of small groups of 3-4 students. Half the groups should get a copy of the Articles of Confederation, and half should get a copy of the Constitution. They should divide the pages among themselves so that each student reads different articles. Each article should be summarized in one sentence and compiled into a group summary. Then, each "Articles of Confederation" group should join with a "Constitution" group. Each combined group should now discuss the questions on the worksheet Why the Constitution? , provided in pdf format, using their article summaries and the original documents for reference. While groups should discuss the answers together, each student should complete a worksheet individually.

For more background on the ideas and documents that paved the way for the Constitution, see the EDSITEment lesson  Jefferson vs. Franklin: Revolutionary Philosophers .

Activity 2. Liberty and Human Nature

After they have some background on this period of vigorous debate, engage students in a class discussion about the issues at hand, asking them to imagine that they were charged with the task of setting up a brand new government for a new country. Pose the question, "How much liberty is enough?" and see where individual students stand. Encourage students to use logical reasoning and examples from history to support their views. Make sure that each student responds to the question in some way. If helpful, you can ask students to focus on a representative microcosm such as the school or the classroom.

Next, share with students the quotes below from Jefferson and Hamilton expressing opposing views about human nature. You can give them one quote at a time and ask each student to agree or disagree, giving reasons to support their answers. Alternatively, you can divide the class into three groups: Jeffersonians (Anti-Federalists), Hamiltonians (Federalists), and judges. You could then ask the Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians to debate each other about the question "How much liberty is enough?" with the judges ultimately deciding whose arguments were more persuasive.

Quotations:

"It has been so often said, as to be generally believed, that Congress have no power by the Confederation to enforce anything, for example, contributions of money. It was not necessary to give them that power expressly, for they have it by the law of nature. When two parties make a compact, there results to each a power of compelling the other to execute it." —Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Edward Carrington, 1787

"Has it not, on the contrary, invariably been found that momentary passions, and immediate interest, have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility or justice?" —Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist Papers , Section 6, 1788

After the debates, facilitate a class discussion framed by any or all of these questions:

• On what issue are these two philosophical positions opposed?
• How is the American government structured to offer a compromise between these two positions?
• What was the historical context in which the U.S. Constitution was developed? What factors had the most influence on how these issues of sovereignty and liberty played out?
• Do you think the same debate today would have similar or different results? Why?

Emphasize the importance of past experience (a.k.a. history) in influencing people's decisions about the future.

For a more detailed analysis of some of the models of representative government proposed and issues deliberated during the debates of the Constitutional Convention, see companion EDSITEment lesson plans, The Constitutional Convention: Four Founding Fathers You May Never Have Met and The Constitutional Convention: What the Founding Fathers Said .

Activity 3. State vs. Federal Government: Division of Power

Tell students that now it is time to examine the balance of governmental power as set up by the Constitution. Make a three-column chart with one column labeled "State," one labeled "Federal," and one labeled "Both." Ask students to brainstorm a list of powers held by the state government and the federal government and document these on the chart. Place powers shared by both state and federal government in the column labeled "Both."

Next, show students the explanation of " Federal Versus State Government " from Ben's Guide to Government for Kids . You can show this page using a projector or print it out for distribution if access to the required technology is not available. Ask selected students to read sections of the text aloud. Then consider the chart of governmental powers featured on the page. Ask students if they can think of any other powers that are not on the list. For instance, providing education (which is part of providing general welfare) is shared, though mostly delegated to state and local governments. Discuss why particular powers might be placed where they are.

Next, view " National Government " and " State Government " and proceed with an overview of the structure of the U.S. government system. Continue asking students to take turns reading aloud. Follow the hyperlinked text as appropriate for your students. Ask questions about vocabulary and concepts that might be unfamiliar to your students. Use the links at the bottom of the page to review each branch of government in more detail. Check your students' understanding by asking open-ended questions such as these:

• What is the relationship between state and federal governments in the U.S.? How are they similar? How are they different? Who has more power?
• What are the advantages of a federal government in which power is divided between national and state governments? What are the advantages of a centralized government (as in France or Great Britain) where all the power rests with the national government?
• Why did the "Founding Fathers" ultimately decide on a federal government?
• What kinds of laws do states make? What kinds of laws does the federal government make? Why?
• What might happen if a state could override a federal law, as Thomas Jefferson once suggested?
• What issues or conflicts might arise from divisions of power between state and federal governments? Use examples.

To make sure students understand the structure of the federal government, you can distribute copies of the diagram of the U.S. Government found on the " Branches of Government " page linked to the text " U.S. Government Manual ." You may also want to review " State Government " page of the Ben's Guide for grades 3-5 for a brief mention of the structure of state and local government systems. The glossary can help students understand unfamiliar terms.

• Explain that improvements did not stop with the original articles of the Constitution. Distribute to all students copies of the Bill of Rights  (available through  America's Founding Documents  at the National Archives website). Ask students to choose the article that they believe to be most important and write a paragraph explaining why.
• Divide students into two groups — Federalists and Anti-Federalists — and ask them to debate each other about whether or not federal government should reign supreme over state government. Make sure they understand the issues of the times, particularly the strong reaction against British control over the colonies and the differing economies of the northern and southern states.
• Test students on selected vocabulary from the glossary of Ben's Guide to Government for Kids or another appropriate source.
• Ask students to fill out a diagram of the U.S. government with selected blank spaces.

Materials & Media

The federalist debates: balancing power between state and federal governments: worksheet 1, related on edsitement, the federalist and anti-federalist debates on diversity and the extended republic, the constitutional convention: four founding fathers you may never have met, jefferson vs. franklin: revolutionary philosophers, the constitutional convention: what the founding fathers said.

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

State and Local   Government

Powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved for States and the people, which are divided between State and local governments.

Most Americans have more frequent contact with their State and local governments than with the Federal Government. Police departments, libraries, and schools—not to mention driver’s licenses and parking tickets—usually fall under the oversight of State and local governments. Each state has its own written constitution, and these documents are often far more elaborate than their Federal counterpart. The Alabama Constitution, for example, contains 310,296 words—more than 40 times as many as the U.S. Constitution.

All State governments are modeled after the Federal Government and consist of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The U.S. Constitution mandates that all States uphold a “republican form” of government, although the three-branch structure is not required.

Executive Branch

In every state, the Executive Branch is headed by a governor who is directly elected by the people. In most states, other leaders in the executive branch are also directly elected, including the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the secretary of state, and auditors and commissioners. States reserve the right to organize in any way, so they often vary greatly with regard to executive structure. 

Legislative Branch

All 50 States have legislatures made up of elected representatives, who consider matters brought forth by the governor or introduced by its members to create legislation that becomes law. The legislature also approves a State’s budget and initiates tax legislation and articles of impeachment. The latter is part of a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government that mirrors the Federal system and prevents any branch from abusing its power.

Except for one State, Nebraska, all States have a bicameral legislature made up of two chambers: a smaller upper house and a larger lower house. Together the two chambers make State laws and fulfill other governing responsibilities. (Nebraska is the lone state that has just one chamber in its legislature.) The smaller upper chamber is always called the Senate, and its members generally serve longer terms, usually four years. The larger lower chamber is most often called the House of Representatives, but some states call it the Assembly or the House of Delegates. Its members usually serve shorter terms, often two years.

Judicial Branch

State judicial branches are usually led by the State supreme court, which hears appeals from lower-level State courts. Court structures and judicial appointments/elections are determined either by legislation or the State constitution. The supreme court focuses on correcting errors made in lower courts and therefore holds no trials. Rulings made in State supreme courts are normally binding; however, when questions are raised regarding consistency with the U.S. Constitution, matters may be appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court.

Local Government

Local governments generally include two tiers: counties, also known as boroughs in Alaska and parishes in Louisiana, and municipalities, or cities/towns. In some States, counties are divided into townships. Municipalities can be structured in many ways, as defined by State constitutions, and are called, variously, townships, villages, boroughs, cities, or towns. Various kinds of districts also provide functions in local government outside county or municipal boundaries, such as school districts or fire protection districts.

Municipal governments—those defined as cities, towns, boroughs (except in Alaska), villages, and townships—are generally organized around a population center and in most cases correspond to the geographical designations used by the United States Census Bureau for reporting of housing and population statistics. Municipalities vary greatly in size, from the millions of residents of New York City and Los Angeles to the few hundred people who live in Jenkins, Minnesota.

Municipalities generally take responsibility 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, signage, and so forth).

Whereas the Federal Government and State governments share power in countless ways, a local government must be granted power by the State. In general, mayors, city councils, and other governing bodies are directly elected by the people.

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Three Branches of Government

By: History.com Editors

Updated: September 4, 2019 | Original: November 17, 2017

The three branches of the U.S. government are the legislative, executive and judicial branches. According to the doctrine of separation of powers, the U.S. Constitution distributed the power of the federal government among these three branches, and built a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one branch could become too powerful.

Separation of Powers

The Enlightenment philosopher Montesquieu coined the phrase “trias politica,” or separation of powers, in his influential 18th-century work “Spirit of the Laws.” His concept of a government divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches acting independently of each other inspired the framers of the U.S. Constitution , who vehemently opposed concentrating too much power in any one body of government.

In the Federalist Papers , James Madison wrote of the necessity of the separation of powers to the new nation’s democratic government: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Legislative Branch

According to Article I of the Constitution, the legislative branch (the U.S. Congress) has the primary power to make the country’s laws. This legislative power is divided further into the two chambers, or houses, of Congress: the House of Representatives and the Senate .

Members of Congress are elected by the people of the United States. While each state gets the same number of senators (two) to represent it, the number of representatives for each state is based on the state’s population.

Therefore, while there are 100 senators, there are 435 elected members of the House, plus an additional six non-voting delegates who represent the District of Columbia as well as Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories.

In order to pass an act of legislation, both houses must pass the same version of a bill by majority vote. Once that happens, the bill goes to the president, who can either sign it into law or reject it using the veto power assigned in the Constitution.

In the case of a regular veto, Congress can override the veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses. Both the veto power and Congress’ ability to override a veto are examples of the system of checks and balances intended by the Constitution to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power.

Executive Branch

Article II of the Constitution states that the executive branch , with the president as its head, has the power to enforce or carry out the laws of the nation.

In addition to the president, who is the commander in chief of the armed forces and head of state, the executive branch includes the vice president and the Cabinet; the State Department, Defense Department and 13 other executive departments; and various other federal agencies, commissions and committees.

Unlike members of Congress, the president and vice president are not elected directly by the people every four years, but through the electoral college system. People vote to select a slate of electors, and each elector pledges to cast his or her vote for the candidate who gets the most votes from the people they represent.

In addition to signing (or vetoing) legislation, the president can influence the country’s laws through various executive actions, including executive orders, presidential memoranda and proclamations. The executive branch is also responsible for carrying out the nation’s foreign policy and conducting diplomacy with other countries, though the Senate must ratify any treaties with foreign nations.

Judicial Branch

Article III decreed that the nation’s judicial power, to apply and interpret the laws, should be vested in “one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

The Constitution didn’t specify the powers of the Supreme Court or explain how the judicial branch should be organized, and for a time the judiciary took a back seat to the other branches of government.

But that all changed with Marbury v. Madison , an 1803 milestone case that established the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review, by which it determines the constitutionality of executive and legislative acts. Judicial review is another key example of the checks and balances system in action.

Members of the federal judiciary—which includes the Supreme Court, 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals and 94 federal judicial district courts—are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Federal judges hold their seats until they resign, die or are removed from office through impeachment by Congress.

Implied Powers of the Three Branches of Government

In addition to the specific powers of each branch that are enumerated in the Constitution, each branch has claimed certain implied powers, many of which can overlap at times. For example, presidents have claimed exclusive right to make foreign policy, without consultation with Congress.

In turn, Congress has enacted legislation that specifically defines how the law should be administered by the executive branch, while federal courts have interpreted laws in ways that Congress did not intend, drawing accusations of “legislating from the bench.”

The powers granted to Congress by the Constitution expanded greatly after the Supreme Court ruled in the 1819 case McCulloch v. Maryland that the Constitution fails to spell out every power granted to Congress.

Since then, the legislative branch has often assumed additional implied powers under the “necessary and proper clause” or “elastic clause” included in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Checks and Balances

“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty is this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself,” James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers . To ensure that all three branches of government remain in balance, each branch has powers that can be checked by the other two branches. Here are ways that the executive, judiciary, and legislative branches keep one another in line:

· The president (head of the executive branch) serves as commander in chief of the military forces, but Congress (legislative branch) appropriates funds for the military and votes to declare war. In addition, the Senate must ratify any peace treaties.

· Congress has the power of the purse, as it controls the money used to fund any executive actions.

· The president nominates federal officials, but the Senate confirms those nominations.

· Within the legislative branch, each house of Congress serves as a check on possible abuses of power by the other. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have to pass a bill in the same form for it to become law.

· Once Congress has passed a bill, the president has the power to veto that bill. In turn, Congress can override a regular presidential veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses.

· The Supreme Court and other federal courts (judicial branch) can declare laws or presidential actions unconstitutional, in a process known as judicial review.

· In turn, the president checks the judiciary through the power of appointment, which can be used to change the direction of the federal courts

· By passing amendments to the Constitution, Congress can effectively check the decisions of the Supreme Court.

· Congress can impeach both members of the executive and judicial branches.

Separation of Powers, The Oxford Guide to the United States Government . Branches of Government, USA.gov . Separation of Powers: An Overview, National Conference of State Legislatures .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Federal, State, and Local Governments in the US Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Hazard mitigation planning plays an important role in land use and the development of governmental interventions and jurisdictions. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) explains these strategies as a possibility to reduce or eliminate long-term risks to people or their properties as a result of natural hazards (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine et al., 2017). The federal government, the state, and local governments are responsible for the development of effective plans, and their roles will be briefly evaluated in this paper.

The evolution of FEMA and its impact on states and local governments prove the role of the federal government in mitigation and disaster assistance. When a disaster occurs, the federal government takes responsibility for three major things – the development of a joint preliminary damage assessment (PDA), the evaluation of requests for federal aid, and the organization of emergency support teams (Peterson, 2017).

The state works by the emergency management agency (EMA) standards. Its functions include the evaluation of local situations, the proclamation of the state of emergency in a region, and communication with the federal government in case assistance is required. The role of local governments cannot be ignored because it touches upon the essentials of hazard mitigation, including community sustainability, resilience, and growth management.

These representatives provide an essential emergency response, activate specialized centers, and coordinate people. Goal-oriented steps provide communities with confidence that certain solutions can be found soon. The evaluation of the impact of the disaster on land and public infrastructure is another task (Peterson, 2017). Activation of mutual aid for citizens promotes resilience for the state and the population.

There is a strong connection between the work of local governments, the state, and the federal government. One body can’t gather all the information and analyze the results within a large territory. Therefore, the categorization of responsibilities and hazard-mitigation strategies should be promoted in each state. Although the governments find answers and offer different aid, the role of people and their prudence must be considered.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Health and Medicine Division, Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, Board on Health Sciences Policy, & Committee on Strengthening the Disaster Resilience of Academic Research Communities. (2017). Strengthening the disaster resilience of the academic biomedical research community: Protecting the nation’s investment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Peterson, M. (2017). What preliminary damage assessments really mean. Web.

• Federal Emergency Management Agency
• The Failure of Leadership in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina
• The Disciplines of Emergency Management
• Intergovernmental Relations: "Making" Our Future
• Intergovernmental Relations and Technology
• Cyber Power and National Security in the US
• Crisis Management and National Security Strategy
• General Directorate of Residency and Foreigners Affairs Dubai
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, December 6). Federal, State, and Local Governments in the US. https://ivypanda.com/essays/federal-state-and-local-governments-in-the-us/

"Federal, State, and Local Governments in the US." IvyPanda , 6 Dec. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/federal-state-and-local-governments-in-the-us/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Federal, State, and Local Governments in the US'. 6 December.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Federal, State, and Local Governments in the US." December 6, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/federal-state-and-local-governments-in-the-us/.

1. IvyPanda . "Federal, State, and Local Governments in the US." December 6, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/federal-state-and-local-governments-in-the-us/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Federal, State, and Local Governments in the US." December 6, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/federal-state-and-local-governments-in-the-us/.

Introductory essay

Written by the educators who created Cyber-Influence and Power, a brief look at the key facts, tough questions and big ideas in their field. Begin this TED Study with a fascinating read that gives context and clarity to the material.

Each and every one of us has a vital part to play in building the kind of world in which government and technology serve the world’s people and not the other way around. Rebecca MacKinnon

Over the past 20 years, information and communication technologies (ICTs) have transformed the globe, facilitating the international economic, political, and cultural connections and exchanges that are at the heart of contemporary globalization processes. The term ICT is broad in scope, encompassing both the technological infrastructure and products that facilitate the collection, storage, manipulation, and distribution of information in a variety of formats.

While there are many definitions of globalization, most would agree that the term refers to a variety of complex social processes that facilitate worldwide economic, cultural, and political connections and exchanges. The kinds of global connections ICTs give rise to mark a dramatic departure from the face-to-face, time and place dependent interactions that characterized communication throughout most of human history. ICTs have extended human interaction and increased our interconnectedness, making it possible for geographically dispersed people not only to share information at an ever-faster rate but also to organize and to take action in response to events occurring in places far from where they are physically situated.

While these complex webs of connections can facilitate positive collective action, they can also put us at risk. As TED speaker Ian Goldin observes, the complexity of our global connections creates a built-in fragility: What happens in one part of the world can very quickly affect everyone, everywhere.

The proliferation of ICTs and the new webs of social connections they engender have had profound political implications for governments, citizens, and non-state actors alike. Each of the TEDTalks featured in this course explore some of these implications, highlighting the connections and tensions between technology and politics. Some speakers focus primarily on how anti-authoritarian protesters use technology to convene and organize supporters, while others expose how authoritarian governments use technology to manipulate and control individuals and groups. When viewed together as a unit, the contrasting voices reveal that technology is a contested site through which political power is both exercised and resisted.

Technology as liberator

The liberating potential of technology is a powerful theme taken up by several TED speakers in Cyber-Influence and Power . Journalist and Global Voices co-founder Rebecca MacKinnon, for example, begins her talk by playing the famous Orwell-inspired Apple advertisement from 1984. Apple created the ad to introduce Macintosh computers, but MacKinnon describes Apple's underlying narrative as follows: "technology created by innovative companies will set us all free." While MacKinnon examines this narrative with a critical eye, other TED speakers focus on the ways that ICTs can and do function positively as tools of social change, enabling citizens to challenge oppressive governments.

In a 2011 CNN interview, Egyptian protest leader, Google executive, and TED speaker Wael Ghonim claimed "if you want to free a society, just give them internet access. The young crowds are going to all go out and see and hear the unbiased media, see the truth about other nations and their own nation, and they are going to be able to communicate and collaborate together." (i). In this framework, the opportunities for global information sharing, borderless communication, and collaboration that ICTs make possible encourage the spread of democracy. As Ghonim argues, when citizens go online, they are likely to discover that their particular government's perspective is only one among many. Activists like Ghonim maintain that exposure to this online free exchange of ideas will make people less likely to accept government propaganda and more likely to challenge oppressive regimes.

A case in point is the controversy that erupted around Khaled Said, a young Egyptian man who died after being arrested by Egyptian police. The police claimed that Said suffocated when he attempted to swallow a bag of hashish; witnesses, however, reported that he was beaten to death by the police. Stories about the beating and photos of Said's disfigured body circulated widely in online communities, and Ghonim's Facebook group, titled "We are all Khaled Said," is widely credited with bringing attention to Said's death and fomenting the discontent that ultimately erupted in the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, or what Ghonim refers to as "revolution 2.0."

Ghonim's Facebook group also illustrates how ICTs enable citizens to produce and broadcast information themselves. Many people already take for granted the ability to capture images and video via handheld devices and then upload that footage to platforms like YouTube. As TED speaker Clay Shirky points out, our ability to produce and widely distribute information constitutes a revolutionary change in media production and consumption patterns. The production of media has typically been very expensive and thus out of reach for most individuals; the average person was therefore primarily a consumer of media, reading books, listening to the radio, watching TV, going to movies, etc. Very few could independently publish their own books or create and distribute their own radio programs, television shows, or movies. ICTs have disrupted this configuration, putting media production in the hands of individual amateurs on a budget — or what Shirky refers to as members of "the former audience" — alongside the professionals backed by multi-billion dollar corporations. This "democratization of media" allows individuals to create massive amounts of information in a variety of formats and to distribute it almost instantly to a potentially global audience.

Shirky is especially interested in the Internet as "the first medium in history that has native support for groups and conversations at the same time." This shift has important political implications. For example, in 2008 many Obama followers used Obama's own social networking site to express their unhappiness when the presidential candidate changed his position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The outcry of his supporters did not force Obama to revert to his original position, but it did help him realize that he needed to address his supporters directly, acknowledging their disagreement on the issue and explaining his position. Shirky observes that this scenario was also notable because the Obama organization realized that "their role was to convene their supporters but not to control their supporters." This tension between the use of technology in the service of the democratic impulse to convene citizens vs. the authoritarian impulse to control them runs throughout many of the TEDTalks in Cyber-Influence and Power.

A number of TED speakers explicitly examine the ways that ICTs give individual citizens the ability to document governmental abuses they witness and to upload this information to the Internet for a global audience. Thus, ICTs can empower citizens by giving them tools that can help keep their governments accountable. The former head of Al Jazeera and TED speaker Wadah Khanfar provides some very clear examples of the political power of technology in the hands of citizens. He describes how the revolution in Tunisia was delivered to the world via cell phones, cameras, and social media outlets, with the mainstream media relying on "citizen reporters" for details.

Former British prime minister Gordon Brown's TEDTalk also highlights some of the ways citizens have used ICTs to keep their governments accountable. For example, Brown recounts how citizens in Zimbabwe used the cameras on their phones at polling places in order to discourage the Mugabe regime from engaging in electoral fraud. Similarly, Clay Shirky begins his TEDTalk with a discussion of how cameras on phones were used to combat voter suppression in the 2008 presidential election in the U.S. ICTs allowed citizens to be protectors of the democratic process, casting their individual votes but also, as Shirky observes, helping to "ensure the sanctity of the vote overall."

Technology as oppressor

While smart phones and social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook have arguably facilitated the overthrow of dictatorships in places like Tunisia and Egypt, lending credence to Gordon Brown's vision of technology as an engine of liberalism and pluralism, not everyone shares this view. As TED speaker and former religious extremist Maajid Nawaz points out, there is nothing inherently liberating about ICTs, given that they frequently are deployed to great effect by extremist organizations seeking social changes that are often inconsistent with democracy and human rights. Where once individual extremists might have felt isolated and alone, disconnected from like-minded people and thus unable to act in concert with others to pursue their agendas, ICTs allow them to connect with other extremists and to form communities around their ideas, narratives, and symbols.

Ian Goldin shares this concern, warning listeners about what he calls the "two Achilles heels of globalization": growing inequality and the fragility that is inherent in a complex integrated system. He points out that those who do not experience the benefits of globalization, who feel like they've been left out in one way or another, can potentially become incredibly dangerous. In a world where what happens in one place very quickly affects everyone else — and where technologies are getting ever smaller and more powerful — a single angry individual with access to technological resources has the potential to do more damage than ever before. The question becomes then, how do we manage the systemic risk inherent in today's technology-infused globalized world? According to Goldin, our current governance structures are "fossilized" and ill-equipped to deal with these issues.

Other critics of the notion that ICTs are inherently liberating point out that ICTs have been leveraged effectively by oppressive governments to solidify their own power and to manipulate, spy upon, and censor their citizens. Journalist and TED speaker Evgeny Morozov expresses scepticism about what he calls "iPod liberalism," or the belief that technology will necessarily lead to the fall of dictatorships and the emergence of democratic governments. Morozov uses the term "spinternet" to describe authoritarian governments' use of the Internet to provide their own "spin" on issues and events. Russia, China, and Iran, he argues, have all trained and paid bloggers to promote their ideological agendas in the online environment and/or or to attack people writing posts the government doesn't like in an effort to discredit them as spies or criminals who should not be trusted.

Morozov also points out that social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are tools not only of revolutionaries but also of authoritarian governments who use them to gather open-source intelligence. "In the past," Morozov maintains, "it would take you weeks, if not months, to identify how Iranian activists connect to each other. Now you know how they connect to each other by looking at their Facebook page. KGB...used to torture in order to get this data." Instead of focusing primarily on bringing Internet access and devices to the people in countries ruled by authoritarian regimes, Morozov argues that we need to abandon our cyber-utopian assumptions and do more to actually empower intellectuals, dissidents, NGOs and other members of society, making sure that the "spinternet" does not prevent their voices from being heard.

The ICT Empowered Individual vs. The Nation State

In her TEDTalk "Let's Take Back the Internet," Rebecca MacKinnon argues that "the only legitimate purpose of government is to serve citizens, and…the only legitimate purpose of technology is to improve our lives, not to manipulate or enslave us." It is clearly not a given, however, that governments, organizations, and individuals will use technology benevolently. Part of the responsibility of citizenship in the globalized information age then is to work to ensure that both governments and technologies "serve the world's peoples." However, there is considerable disagreement about what that might look like.

WikiLeaks spokesperson and TED speaker Julian Assange, for example, argues that government secrecy is inconsistent with democratic values and is ultimately about deceiving and manipulating rather than serving the world's people. Others maintain that governments need to be able to keep secrets about some topics in order to protect their citizens or to act effectively in response to crises, oppressive regimes, terrorist organizations, etc. While some view Assange's use of technology as a way to hold governments accountable and to increase transparency, others see this use of technology as a criminal act with the potential to both undermine stable democracies and put innocent lives in danger.

ICTs and global citizenship

While there are no easy answers to the global political questions raised by the proliferation of ICTs, there are relatively new approaches to the questions that look promising, including the emergence of individuals who see themselves as global citizens — people who participate in a global civil society that transcends national boundaries. Technology facilitates global citizens' ability to learn about global issues, to connect with others who care about similar issues, and to organize and act meaningfully in response. However, global citizens are also aware that technology in and of itself is no panacea, and that it can be used to manipulate and oppress.

Global citizens fight against oppressive uses of technology, often with technology. Technology helps them not only to participate in global conversations that affect us all but also to amplify the voices of those who have been marginalized or altogether missing from such conversations. Moreover, global citizens are those who are willing to grapple with large and complex issues that are truly global in scope and who attempt to chart a course forward that benefits all people, regardless of their locations around the globe.

Gordon Brown implicitly alludes to the importance of global citizenship when he states that we need a global ethic of fairness and responsibility to inform global problem-solving. Human rights, disease, development, security, terrorism, climate change, and poverty are among the issues that cannot be addressed successfully by any one nation alone. Individual actors (nation states, NGOs, etc.) can help, but a collective of actors, both state and non-state, is required. Brown suggests that we must combine the power of a global ethic with the power to communicate and organize globally in order for us to address effectively the world's most pressing issues.

Individuals and groups today are able to exert influence that is disproportionate to their numbers and the size of their arsenals through their use of "soft power" techniques, as TED speakers Joseph Nye and Shashi Tharoor observe. This is consistent with Maajid Nawaz's discussion of the power of symbols and narratives. Small groups can develop powerful narratives that help shape the views and actions of people around the world. While governments are far more accustomed to exerting power through military force, they might achieve their interests more effectively by implementing soft power strategies designed to convince others that they want the same things. According to Nye, replacing a "zero-sum" approach (you must lose in order for me to win) with a "positive-sum" one (we can both win) creates opportunities for collaboration, which is necessary if we are to begin to deal with problems that are global in scope.

Let's get started

Collectively, the TEDTalks in this course explore how ICTs are used by and against governments, citizens, activists, revolutionaries, extremists, and other political actors in efforts both to preserve and disrupt the status quo. They highlight the ways that ICTs have opened up new forms of communication and activism as well as how the much-hailed revolutionary power of ICTs can and has been co-opted by oppressive regimes to reassert their control.

By listening to the contrasting voices of this diverse group of TED speakers, which includes activists, journalists, professors, politicians, and a former member of an extremist organization, we can begin to develop a more nuanced understanding of the ways that technology can be used both to facilitate and contest a wide variety of political movements. Global citizens who champion democracy would do well to explore these intersections among politics and technology, as understanding these connections is a necessary first step toward MacKinnon's laudable goal of building a world in which "government and technology serve the world's people and not the other way around."

Let's begin our exploration of the intersections among politics and technology in today's globalized world with a TEDTalk from Ian Goldin, the first Director of the 21st Century School, Oxford University's think tank/research center. Goldin's talk will set the stage for us, exploring the integrated, complex, and technology rich global landscape upon which the political struggles for power examined by other TED speakers play out.

Navigating our global future

i. "Welcome to Revolution 2.0, Ghonim Says," CNN, February 9, 2011. http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2011/02/09/wael.ghonim.interview.cnn .

Relevant talks

Gordon Brown

Wiring a web for global good.

Clay Shirky

How social media can make history.

Wael Ghonim

Inside the egyptian revolution.

Wadah Khanfar

A historic moment in the arab world.

Evgeny Morozov

How the net aids dictatorships.

Maajid Nawaz

A global culture to fight extremism.

Rebecca MacKinnon

Let's take back the internet.

Julian Assange

Why the world needs wikileaks.

Global power shifts

Shashi Tharoor

Why nations should pursue soft power.

• | Capitol Hill, State House, or City Hall: Debating the Location of Political Power and Decision-Making Capitol Hill, State House, or City Hall: Debating the Location of Political Power and Decision-Making
• | Corporate Welfare Corporate Welfare
• | Essays Essays
• | July 19, 2017

A State and Local Federalist Relationship Must Be Market-Preserving

• Adam Millsap

Replacing the current, complicated relationship between states and local governments with an actual federalist relationship is appealing, provided that it disciplines government and preserves individual freedom.

Federalism describes a system in which no one entity is the sole source of political power within a given jurisdiction. States and local governments do not have a federalist relationship.

Instead, local governments are a form of administrative decentralization. A state’s political power is decentralized among a variety of local governmental units such as counties, municipalities, and school districts. Administrative decentralization is more about efficiency than local autonomy, but it gives the illusion of a federalist relationship between state and local government that often confuses citizens and local policymakers alike.

Replacing the current, complicated relationship between states and local governments with an actual federalist relationship is appealing, provided that it disciplines government and preserves individual freedom. But not all versions of federalism accomplish such a balance . To achieve this end, political scientist Barry Weingast argues for a specific form of federalism he calls market-preserving federalism .

According to political scientist William Riker, two conditions are necessary for federalism : (a) a hierarchy of governments, and (b) the institutionalization of autonomy of each government, such that federalism’s restrictions are self-enforcing. To these, Weingast adds three others: (a) subnational governments have primary regulatory responsibility over the economy, (b) they face a hard budget constraint (that is, their revenue cannot be augmented by higher level governments), and (c) they are prevented from erecting trade barriers against other lower-level governments.

Market-preserving federalism permits a variety of local governments to form, and these local governments can differ by the variety and amount of public goods they provide as well as by tax policy and other regulations. The presence of alternatives combined with the characteristics of market-preserving federalism together encourage local governments to credibly commit to economic policies that limit their ability to confiscate wealth and interfere with the economy. This interjurisdictional competition between local governments serves as a check on government power.  

Recognizing the relationship among the three additional characteristics of market-preserving federalism is important for understanding how a federalist relationship between states and cities should work. If cities are going to be given primary regulatory control over their local economy, then they must also face a hard budget constraint and be prevented from erecting trade barriers.

Hard budget constrains force city governments to confront the fiscal consequences of their decisions. For example, some residents may lobby for a higher statutory minimum wage, but if a higher minimum wage causes some employers to close or relocate to other jurisdictions—decreasing consumption and employment options as well as tax revenue in the process—they may change their minds.

Higher income taxes, property taxes, or regulations that increase the costs of doing business might also drive out employers and residents and decrease tax revenue. Ensuring that cities remain responsive to these signals requires that they do not receive supplemental revenue from the federal government or their state government. Currently, this is not the case. In fiscal 2013, local governments raised $1.52 trillion in general revenue, 36 percent of which came from higher-level governments, with the bulk of it coming from the state level.

State governments must avoid bailing out local governments in fiscal crisis. As Weingast explicitly notes, the hard-budget-constraint condition of market-preserving federalism is violated if higher-level governments rescue lower-level governments whenever the latter face fiscal problems.

Local governments must also not be allowed to impede trade. If trade is broadly conceived as the free movement not only of goods and capital between jurisdictions but also of people, then cities with extensive land-use regulations that artificially increase the cost of housing violate this condition. Such cities have not erected explicit barriers to new residents, but their land-use regulations have a similar effect by design. In these cases, states may have to intervene.

Trade barriers are prohibited because they enable governments to insulate firms within their borders from competition, which interferes with the market process that guides the most efficient use of scarce resources. Restricting labor mobility infringes on people’s individual freedom of movement and prevents labor from reaching its highest-valued use. And like a soft budget constraint, restricting the movement of goods and people dampens the feedback signals perceived by city officials, which reduces their incentive to modify ineffective economic policies.

Under this framework, local governments have a large amount of control over their economies. They can set their own tax policy, impose business-licensing requirements (e.g., thumbprints for Uber drivers), and implement price controls such as a minimum wage. The benefit of this framework is not that it prohibits certain economic policies but that it tightens the feedback between economic policies and their economic and fiscal impacts. This is important because feedback is crucial for effective decision-making.

Policies that lead to population loss, decreased tax revenue, or both will be hard to maintain so long as those signals are accurately transmitted to voters and government officials. Hard budget constraints and restrictions on trade barriers, including restriction on barriers to interjurisdictional migration, are vital for this reason.

Market-preserving federalism won’t eliminate local price controls or other economic interventions. In the short run, there will be local restrictions on economic activity that many free-market advocates will find objectionable. But, in the long run, this framework will expose the costs of such restrictions more rapidly and, thus, should decrease their use without requiring incessant intervention from the state. So, although it’s not a perfect solution, it would be an improvement over the status quo.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Government

The Federal And The State Government Essay

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Government , Constitution , Law , Management , Politics , Supreme Court , President , American Constitution

Words: 1400

Published: 02/06/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Introduction

The federal government of the United States is consisted of three branches; legislative, executive and judicial. The powers of the legislative branch are listed in Article I of the US Constitution, the powers of the executive branch in Article II of the Constitution and the powers of the judiciary in Article III of the same. Founded on the principle of Federalism, the government of the United States is divided into two sovereign powers; Federal Government and the State Governments. Under Federalism, both state governments and the Federal Government have separate and concurrent powers. The founding fathers of the US Constitution in order to deter an abuse of power designed the division of powers between the two types of government in the manner of checks and balances. For instance, the judges nominated by the President for the highest judicial authority of the country, the Supreme Court, must be approved by the legislative authority, the Congress, before being appointed. On the other hand, the President has the power to dismiss any law proposed by the Congress as unconstitutional. This paper will discuss in detail about the powers of the Federal and State government, their limitations, the powers shared by them and the Supremacy clause to settle dispute between the two governments.

Powers of the Federal Government

The legislative powers of the Federal government are vested in the US Congress comprised of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Section 8 of Article I of the US Constitution details the powers of the Congress which include the powers to make laws in compliance with the Constitution, declare war, levy and collect taxes, raise and support army and navy, regulate international trade and commerce, build post office and roads, fight piracy and felony, coin money and regulate the value, to make rules for the government and regulation of land and naval forces, to form Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court and so on. The Congress also possesses the power to depose the President and other federal officials from service. Both the House of Representatives and Senate play different roles in the process. Firstly, the official must be impeached by the House followed by a trial in the Senate to adjudge whether or not the official should be terminated from service. In the US history two Presidents, Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached by the House, though in the removal of neither of them a trial was held in the Senate. The powers of the executive branch are enumerated in the Article II, Section I of the US Constitution. The president is considered the head of the government and state. The president is also a commander in chief of the military and naval forces and has the power to appoint federal judges and Supreme Court justices, ambassadors and other high rank officials of the executive branch. All the appointments made by the President, however, have to be approved by two-third majority of the Congress. Article III and section I of the US Constitution grants the supreme judicial power to the Supreme Court of the US, though the Congress may form tribunals or inferior courts as and when needs arise. The US Supreme Court has the power to adjudicate controversial cases relative to the Federal Government, solve disputes between states and provide interpretation of the US Constitution. Also, it has the power to declare an executive or legislative action as unconstitutional.

Limitations of the Power of Federal Government

The Federal government, however, does not have absolute power. Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution limits the power of the government denying it the power to levy export taxes, grant the title of Nobility to anyone. No preference should be given to the ports of one state over others by any regulation of commerce. Direct taxes should be equally laid among the states. Further the 'Bill of Rights' with its ten amendments restricts the power of the Federal government. Government cannot impose a law depriving the citizens or the press of the right to freedom of speech or expression. The government cannot dictate its citizens what religion to follow. Any person cannot be punished twice for the same crime nor can anyone be compelled to witness against himself. Private property cannot be confiscated by the government without appropriate compensation (National Review Institute). The State government just like the Federal Government is divided into three branches - legislative, executive and judicial. Based on requirement, history and philosophy, each state of the US has its own constitution parallel to the US Constitution. However, the laws enacted by individual states should be in compliance with the US Constitution and federal laws. In place of a President, each state has a governor as the executive head. All of the 50 states have a legislative body comprised of elected representatives. State judiciary is run by the state Supreme Courts which judge on matters coming from lower-level state courts. The powers of the state governments include the power to control intrastate commerce, issue driving, marriage and other licenses, ratify amendments and conduct elections (Robert Longley). States also have the power to set up local government to help carry out the constitutional powers.

Limitations of the State Government

Article I section 10 of the US Constitution imposes limitations on the power of the states. The state does not have the power to enter into an alliance or treaty, nor can it levy taxes on exports and imports unless necessary without the Congressional consent. Unless invaded, states cannot participate in war nor can enter into an agreement with a foreign country or another state without the Congressional consent. The states do not have the power to coin money.

Concurrent Powers

The US Constitution provides some similar powers to the Federal government and State government and these powers are known as concurrent powers. These shared powers include the power to impose tax and borrow money, enact and enforce laws, expend money for the general welfare of public, establish courts, charter banks and corporations and take away private property with appropriate compensation for public use (Robert Longley).

Supremacy Clause

Article VI Section 2 of the US Constitution identifies the federal laws and federal statutes and the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land. In the event of a conflict between state government and federal government, the federal statutes that are made in compliance with the US Constitution will have supremacy over the state laws. This is known as Supremacy Clause. For example, the Civil Right laws that were enacted in the wake of the Civil war prohibited the state government from passing discriminatory laws against the minority section. Similarly, the 24th amendment to the US Constitution prohibited states from restricting the voting right by the use of poll taxes.

The administration system of the Unites States is a dual sovereignty with powers divided between the Federal government and the State government. Both the governments are segmented into three distinct branches – legislation, executive and judiciary. Both the governments have some separate powers and concurrent powers. Due to the division of powers between the two governments in a manner of checks and balances, both the governments have some limitations. In the event of a conflict between the state and the Federal government, a Supremacy Clause is in place in the US Constitution to adjudicate the dispute. The US Constitution is deemed as the supreme law of the land and in case of any state law conflicting with a federal statute made in the pursuance of the Constitution; the Federal government has the power to nullify the state laws as unconstitutional. Though the two governing bodies share some powers and similarity, ultimately it is the US Constitution that holds supremacy over the two.

"Federal Power." Retrieved on 26th May 2013 from <http://www.articleii.org/federal_power.html> "The United States Constitution." Retrieved on 26th May 2013 from <http://constitutionus.com/> "The Constitution does limit federal power." June 30, 2011. National Review Institute, Retrieved on 26th May 2013 from <http://nrinstitute.org/lmotw/2011/06/30/the-constitution-does-limit-federal-power/> Longley, Robert. "Federalism: National vs. State Government." About.com Guide, Retrieved on 26th May 2013 from <http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/federalism.htm> "Government and society: State and local government." Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved on 26th May 2013 from <http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-233793>

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 833

This paper is created by writer with

ID 276370530

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Drama literature reviews, strategic leadership research papers, sexual argumentative essays, bernadette essays, alpha male essays, art of losing essays, bad genes essays, bernal essays, berrigan essays, logical fallacies essays, rational reason essays, water purification essays, membranes essays, coagulated essays, santoro essays, tap water essays, charcoal essays, kaufman essays, corticosteroid essays, episodes essays, agonists essays, viacom essays, lucasfilm essays, chimpanzees essays, good essay about patent, sample essay on the foreign policies of adoption in arab nations need to be reviewed, free term paper about race ethnicity and crime changes in perceptions over the years, good does an honor code make it too easy to cheat essay example, free synthesis of aspirin report sample, will my pet be in heaven with me literature review example, ethical and socially responsive company essay sample, essay on same site exception, report on culturally competent oral and health care indigenous health, biblical literature essays examples, essay on the madness of john brown, free a study of stephen sparrows article on flannery oconners a good man is hard to find essay sample, good example of why chinese drink hot water essay, comparison essay cinderella and hamlet essays example, good research paper on human activity and its contribution towards global warming, gis for water resource management report samples, free research paper on the current passing through the two resistors is the same for a parallel circuit the equivalent resistance becomes, free sabriya and sheltered quarter essay example, free critical thinking on relevance of introductory statistics course for students enrolled in different progams.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Amdt1.7.2.4 State Action Doctrine and Free Speech

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment by its terms applies only to laws enacted by Congress and not to the actions of private persons. 1 Footnote Through interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the prohibition extends to the states as well. See Bill of Rights: The Fourteenth Amendment and Incorporation. Of course, the First Amendment also applies to the non-legislative branches of government—to every government agency—local, state, or federal. Herbert v. Lando , 441 U.S. 153, 168 n.16 (1979) . As such, the First Amendment is subject to a state action (or governmental action ) limitation similar to that applicable to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. 2 Footnote See, e.g. , Amdt1.7.2.4 State Action Doctrine and Free Speech . The Supreme Court has stated that a private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances, such as [1] when the private entity performs a traditional, exclusive public function; [2] when the government compels the private entity to take a particular action; or [3] when the government acts jointly with the private entity. 3 Footnote Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck , No. 17-702, slip op. at 6 (U.S. June 17, 2019) (internal citations omitted) (citing Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co. , 419 U.S. 345, 352–54 (1974) , Blum v. Yaretsky , 457 U.S. 991, 1004–05 (1982) , and Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. , 457 U.S. 922, 941–42 (1982) , respectively). In addition, some private entities established by the government to carry out governmental objectives may qualify as state actors for purposes of the First Amendment. For example, in Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. , the Court held that the national passenger train company Amtrak, though nominally a private corporation, qualified as an agency or instrumentality of the United States for purposes of the First Amendment. 4 Footnote 513 U.S. 374, 383, 394 (1995) ; see also Dep’t of Transp. v. Ass’n of Am. R.R. , 575 U.S. 43, 55 (2015) (extending the holding of Lebron , such that Amtrak was considered a governmental entity for purposes of the Fifth Amendment due process and separation-of-powers claims presented by the case). It did not matter, in the Court’s view, that the federal statute establishing Amtrak expressly stated that Amtrak was not a federal agency because Amtrak was established and organized under federal law for the very purpose of pursuing federal governmental objectives, under the direction and control of federal governmental appointees. 5 Footnote Lebron , 513 U.S. at 391–93, 398 .

Starting with the public function test, the Court extended the First Amendment to apply to the actions of a private party in Marsh v. Alabama , barring the punishment of a resident of a company-owned town for distributing religious literature. 6 Footnote Marsh v. Alabama , 326 U.S. 501, 509 (1946) . A state statute ma[de] it a crime to enter or remain on the premises of another after having been warned not to do so ; the resident had been warned that, pursuant to a company policy, she could not distribute religious literature without a permit, and she subsequently disregarded that warning and refused to leave a sidewalk. Id. at 503–04 . Accordingly, although the case involved a criminal prosecution brought by the State of Alabama, liability turned on the town’s ability to prevent residents from distributing literature without a permit. See id. While the town was owned by a private corporation, it ha[d] all the characteristics of any other American town, including residences, businesses, streets, utilities, public safety officers, and a post office. 7 Footnote Id. at 502–03. Under these circumstances, the Court held that the corporation’s property interests did not settle the question 8 Footnote Id. at 505 . : [w]hether a corporation or a municipality owns or possesses the town[,] the public in either case has an identical interest in the functioning of the community in such manner that the channels of communication remain free. 9 Footnote Id. at 507 . See also id. at 508 (noting that residents of company towns, like residents of other towns, must make decisions which affect the welfare of community and nation, and that to do this, they must have access to uncensored information). Consequently, the corporation could not be permitted to govern a community of citizens in a way that restrict[ed] their fundamental liberties. 10 Footnote Id. at 509 .

Since Marsh was issued in 1946, however, it has largely been limited to the facts presented in that case, and applies only if a private entity exercises powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State. 11 Footnote Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co. , 419 U.S. 345, 352 (1974) (emphasis added). Accord Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co. , 457 U.S. 922, 939 (1982) ; Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks , 436 U.S. 149, 158–59 (1978) . The Supreme Court extended the Marsh decision in 1968: in Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza , the Court held that a private shopping mall could not prevent individuals from peacefully picketing on the premises, noting similarities between the business block in Marsh and the shopping center at issue in that case. 12 Footnote 391 U.S. 308, 317 (1968) . In dissent, Justice Hugo Black would have ruled that the picketers could not, under the guise of exercising First Amendment rights, trespass on . . . private property for the purpose of picketing. Id. at 329 (Black, J., dissenting). However, the Court subsequently disclaimed Logan Valley in Hudgens v. NLRB , rejecting the idea that large self-contained shopping center[s] are the functional equivalent of a municipality. 13 Footnote Hudgens v. NLRB , 424 U.S. 507, 520 (1976) . Instead, the Court held that in Hudgens , where a shopping center manager had threatened to arrest picketers for trespassing, the constitutional guarantee of free expression ha[d] no part to play. 14 Footnote Id. at 521 . As a result, the picketers did not have a First Amendment right to enter this shopping center for the purpose of advertising their strike. 15 Footnote Id. In another decision in which the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment did not prevent a shopping center from banning the distribution of handbills, the Court distinguished Marsh by noting that the owner of the company town was performing the full spectrum of municipal powers and stood in the shoes of the State. 16 Footnote Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner , 407 U.S. 551, 569 (1972) . By contrast, the disputed shopping center had not assumed municipal functions or power. 17 Footnote Id. The fact that the shopping center was generally open to the public did not qualify as a dedication of [the] privately owned and operated shopping center to public use sufficient to entitle respondents to exercise therein the asserted First Amendment rights. 18 Footnote Id. at 569–70 .

More recently, in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck , the Supreme Court held that Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN), a private, nonprofit corporation designated by New York City to operate public access channels in Manhattan, was not a state actor for purposes of the First Amendment because it did not exercise a traditional, exclusive public function. 19 Footnote Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck , No. 17-702, slip op. at 2–3, 6 (U.S. June 17, 2019) Emphasizing the limited number of functions that met this standard under the Court’s precedents, 20 Footnote Id. at 6–7 (stating that while running elections and operating a company town qualify as traditional, exclusive public functions, running sports associations and leagues, administering insurance payments, operating nursing homes, providing special education, representing indigent criminal defendants, resolving private disputes, and supplying electricity do not). the Court reasoned that operating public access channels has not traditionally and exclusively been performed by government because a variety of private and public actors had performed the function since the 1970s. 21 Footnote Id. at 7 . Moreover, the Court reasoned, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints. 22 Footnote Id. at 10 .

Apart from the factual circumstances presented by the company town that exercises powers traditionally and exclusively held by the government, 23 Footnote Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co. , 419 U.S. 345, 352 (1974) . the Court has sometimes applied the First Amendment against private parties if they have a sufficiently close relationship to the government. 24 Footnote See Pub. Utils. Comm’n v. Pollak , 343 U.S. 451, 462 (1952) (holding that such a relationship existed where the private company operated a public utility that represented a substantial monopoly under congressional authority and, more importantly, the company operated under the regulatory supervision of a governmental agency, and the particular action being challenged involved action by that agency). Such circumstances may exist where a private company is subject to extensive state regulation —although government regulation alone is not sufficient to establish the state action requirement. 25 Footnote Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co. , 419 U.S. 345, 350 (1974) ; see also Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n , 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001) . Instead, the inquiry in such a case is whether there is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of the regulated entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself. 26 Footnote Jackson , 419 U.S. at 351 . Accordingly, for example, in Manhattan Community Access Corp. , the Supreme Court also held that the city’s selection of MNN and the state’s extensive regulation of MNN did not in and of themselves create state action. 27 Footnote See id. at 11 (reasoning that absent performance of a traditional and exclusive public function, a private entity is not a state actor merely because the government licenses, contracts with, grants a monopoly to, or subsidizes it); id. at 12 (reasoning that state regulations that restrict MNN’s editorial discretion and effectively require it to operate almost like a common carrier do not make MNN a state actor). The majority also rejected the argument that MNN was simply standing in for New York City in managing government property, reasoning that the record did not show that any government owned, leased, or otherwise had a property interest in the public access channels or the broader cable network in which they operated. Id. at 14–15 .

Public officials and government employees may engage in state action, but such persons also have First Amendment rights as private citizens. 28 Footnote Garcetti v. Ceballos , 547 U.S. 410, 417 (2006) . See generally Amdt1.7.9.4 Pickering Balancing Test for Government Employee Speech . Under the Supreme Court’s broader state action jurisprudence, an official engages in state action if that individual possesses government authority and purports to act under that authority. 29 Footnote Griffin v. Maryland , 378 U.S. 130, 135 (1964) . See generally Amdt14.2 State Action Doctrine . In Lindke v. Freed , the Court held that this same test applies to an official’s alleged violation of the Free Speech Clause when the official blocked a constituent from viewing or commenting on their social media page. 30 Footnote Lindke v. Freed , No. 22-611, slip op. at 1-2 (U.S. Mar. 15, 2024) . ( We hold that such speech is attributable to the State only if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf and (2) purported to exercise that authority when he spoke on social media. ) The Court simultaneously decided another case involving public officials blocking constituents on social media. O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier , No. 22-324, slip op. at 2–3 (U.S. Mar. 15, 2024) . Both cases were vacated and remanded. Id .; Lindke , slip op. at 15 . The Court observed that officials using social media may speak about public issues—including those relating to their official responsibilities—in their capacity as private citizens, rather than as public officials. 31 Footnote Lindke , slip op. at 12 . The Court first ruled that for an official’s conduct to be attributable to the state, the official must possess actual authority to speak for the government. 32 Footnote Id . This authority can be explicit or implicit, but must be rooted in written law or longstanding custom and must include the authority to speak on the issues that were the subject of the alleged constitutional violation. 33 Footnote Id . at 11–12 . To determine whether an official with state authority has purported to exercise that authority on social media is a fact-specific undertaking that depends principally on the content and function of the social media post. 34 Footnote Id . at 13 .

The question of when broadcast companies are engaged in governmental action subject to the First Amendment has sometimes been a difficult one. In Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee , the Court considered whether a radio station that had a license from the government to broadcast over airwaves in the public domain needed to comply with the First Amendment when it sold air time to third parties. 35 Footnote 412 U.S. 94 (1973) . The radio station had a policy of refusing to sell air time to persons seeking to express opinions on controversial issues. 36 Footnote Id. at 98 . Three Justices joined a plurality opinion concluding that the radio station was not engaged in governmental action when it enforced this policy. 37 Footnote Id. at 120 (plurality opinion of Burger, C.J., and Stewart and Rehnquist, JJ.). They reasoned that the federal government had not partnered with or profited from the broadcaster’s decisions and that Congress had affirmatively indicated that broadcasters subject to federal law retained certain journalistic license. 38 Footnote Id. at 119–20 . In the view of those Justices, if the Court were to read the First Amendment to spell out governmental action in the circumstances presented . . . , few licensee decisions on the content of broadcasts or the processes of editorial evaluation would escape constitutional scrutiny. 39 Footnote Id. at 120 . In contrast, three other Members of the Court would have held that the radio station was engaged in governmental action because of the degree of governmental regulation of broadcasters’ activities and the station’s use of the airwaves, a public resource. 40 Footnote Id. at 150 (Douglas, J., concurring in the judgment); id. at 172–73 (Brennan and Marshall, JJ., dissenting). And three Justices would not have decided the state action question. 41 Footnote See id. at 171 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (noting that Justices Byron White, Harry Blackmun, and Lewis Powell would not have reached the state action question). Nevertheless, these three Justices joined the Court’s opinion concluding that even if the broadcaster was engaged in governmental action, the First Amendment did not require a private right of access to the broadcast media. 42 Footnote Id. at 129 (majority opinion).

•   Jump to essay-1 Through interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the prohibition extends to the states as well. See Bill of Rights: The Fourteenth Amendment and Incorporation. Of course, the First Amendment also applies to the non-legislative branches of government—to every government agency—local, state, or federal. Herbert v. Lando , 441 U.S. 153, 168 n.16 (1979) .
•   Jump to essay-2 See, e.g. , Amdt1.7.2.4 State Action Doctrine and Free Speech .
•   Jump to essay-3 Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck , No. 17-702, slip op. at 6 (U.S. June 17, 2019) (internal citations omitted) (citing Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co. , 419 U.S. 345, 352–54 (1974) , Blum v. Yaretsky , 457 U.S. 991, 1004–05 (1982) , and Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. , 457 U.S. 922, 941–42 (1982) , respectively).
•   Jump to essay-4 513 U.S. 374, 383, 394 (1995) ; see also Dep’t of Transp. v. Ass’n of Am. R.R. , 575 U.S. 43, 55 (2015) (extending the holding of Lebron , such that Amtrak was considered a governmental entity for purposes of the Fifth Amendment due process and separation-of-powers claims presented by the case).
•   Jump to essay-5 Lebron , 513 U.S. at 391–93, 398 .
•   Jump to essay-6 Marsh v. Alabama , 326 U.S. 501, 509 (1946) . A state statute ma[de] it a crime to enter or remain on the premises of another after having been warned not to do so ; the resident had been warned that, pursuant to a company policy, she could not distribute religious literature without a permit, and she subsequently disregarded that warning and refused to leave a sidewalk. Id. at 503–04 . Accordingly, although the case involved a criminal prosecution brought by the State of Alabama, liability turned on the town’s ability to prevent residents from distributing literature without a permit. See id.
•   Jump to essay-7 Id. at 502–03.
•   Jump to essay-8 Id. at 505 .
•   Jump to essay-9 Id. at 507 . See also id. at 508 (noting that residents of company towns, like residents of other towns, must make decisions which affect the welfare of community and nation, and that to do this, they must have access to uncensored information).
•   Jump to essay-10 Id. at 509 .
•   Jump to essay-11 Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co. , 419 U.S. 345, 352 (1974) (emphasis added). Accord Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co. , 457 U.S. 922, 939 (1982) ; Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks , 436 U.S. 149, 158–59 (1978) .
•   Jump to essay-12 391 U.S. 308, 317 (1968) . In dissent, Justice Hugo Black would have ruled that the picketers could not, under the guise of exercising First Amendment rights, trespass on . . . private property for the purpose of picketing. Id. at 329 (Black, J., dissenting).
•   Jump to essay-13 Hudgens v. NLRB , 424 U.S. 507, 520 (1976) .
•   Jump to essay-14 Id. at 521 .
•   Jump to essay-15 Id.
•   Jump to essay-16 Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner , 407 U.S. 551, 569 (1972) .
•   Jump to essay-17 Id.
•   Jump to essay-18 Id. at 569–70 .
•   Jump to essay-19 Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck , No. 17-702, slip op. at 2–3, 6 (U.S. June 17, 2019)
•   Jump to essay-20 Id. at 6–7 (stating that while running elections and operating a company town qualify as traditional, exclusive public functions, running sports associations and leagues, administering insurance payments, operating nursing homes, providing special education, representing indigent criminal defendants, resolving private disputes, and supplying electricity do not).
•   Jump to essay-21 Id. at 7 .
•   Jump to essay-22 Id. at 10 .
•   Jump to essay-23 Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co. , 419 U.S. 345, 352 (1974) .
•   Jump to essay-24 See Pub. Utils. Comm’n v. Pollak , 343 U.S. 451, 462 (1952) (holding that such a relationship existed where the private company operated a public utility that represented a substantial monopoly under congressional authority and, more importantly, the company operated under the regulatory supervision of a governmental agency, and the particular action being challenged involved action by that agency).
•   Jump to essay-25 Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co. , 419 U.S. 345, 350 (1974) ; see also Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n , 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001) .
•   Jump to essay-26 Jackson , 419 U.S. at 351 .
•   Jump to essay-27 See id. at 11 (reasoning that absent performance of a traditional and exclusive public function, a private entity is not a state actor merely because the government licenses, contracts with, grants a monopoly to, or subsidizes it); id. at 12 (reasoning that state regulations that restrict MNN’s editorial discretion and effectively require it to operate almost like a common carrier do not make MNN a state actor). The majority also rejected the argument that MNN was simply standing in for New York City in managing government property, reasoning that the record did not show that any government owned, leased, or otherwise had a property interest in the public access channels or the broader cable network in which they operated. Id. at 14–15 .
•   Jump to essay-28 Garcetti v. Ceballos , 547 U.S. 410, 417 (2006) . See generally Amdt1.7.9.4 Pickering Balancing Test for Government Employee Speech .
•   Jump to essay-29 Griffin v. Maryland , 378 U.S. 130, 135 (1964) . See generally Amdt14.2 State Action Doctrine .
•   Jump to essay-30 Lindke v. Freed , No. 22-611, slip op. at 1-2 (U.S. Mar. 15, 2024) . ( We hold that such speech is attributable to the State only if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf and (2) purported to exercise that authority when he spoke on social media. ) The Court simultaneously decided another case involving public officials blocking constituents on social media. O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier , No. 22-324, slip op. at 2–3 (U.S. Mar. 15, 2024) . Both cases were vacated and remanded. Id .; Lindke , slip op. at 15 .
•   Jump to essay-31 Lindke , slip op. at 12 .
•   Jump to essay-32 Id .
•   Jump to essay-33 Id . at 11–12 .
•   Jump to essay-34 Id . at 13 .
•   Jump to essay-35 412 U.S. 94 (1973) .
•   Jump to essay-36 Id. at 98 .
•   Jump to essay-37 Id. at 120 (plurality opinion of Burger, C.J., and Stewart and Rehnquist, JJ.).
•   Jump to essay-38 Id. at 119–20 .
•   Jump to essay-39 Id. at 120 .
•   Jump to essay-40 Id. at 150 (Douglas, J., concurring in the judgment); id. at 172–73 (Brennan and Marshall, JJ., dissenting).
•   Jump to essay-41 See id. at 171 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (noting that Justices Byron White, Harry Blackmun, and Lewis Powell would not have reached the state action question).
•   Jump to essay-42 Id. at 129 (majority opinion).

Essay on Government

Students are often asked to write an essay on Government in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Government

What is government.

Government is a group of people who make decisions and laws for a country. They are responsible for providing services like education, healthcare, and security to the public.

Types of Government

There are different types of governments, such as democracy, monarchy, dictatorship, and communism. In a democracy, people choose their leaders through voting.

Roles of Government

Governments have many roles. They protect citizens, make laws, and manage the economy. They also provide public services like schools and hospitals.

Importance of Government

Government is important because it maintains order, protects citizens, and provides necessary services. Without it, society would be chaotic.

250 Words Essay on Government

Introduction.

The term ‘Government’ fundamentally signifies the governing body of a nation or state that exercises authority, controls, and administers public policy. It is the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states.

The Role of Government

The government plays a crucial role in society by ensuring the smooth functioning of the nation. It is responsible for maintaining law and order, protecting citizens’ rights, and providing public services. The government also shapes the economy by implementing policies that either stimulate or slow down economic growth.

Governments can be categorized into several types based on their structure and the extent of power they exercise. These include democracy, where power is vested in the people; monarchy, where power is held by a single ruler; and autocracy, where a single person holds unlimited power.

Government and Democracy

In democratic governments, citizens have the right to elect their representatives who make decisions on their behalf. This system promotes accountability, transparency, and the protection of individual rights. However, democracy’s success hinges on an informed and active citizenry that can hold the government accountable.

In conclusion, the government is a fundamental institution in any society. It plays a pivotal role in maintaining societal order, ensuring the welfare of its citizens, and driving the nation’s growth and development. The efficiency of a government is largely determined by its structure, the extent of its powers, and the level of citizen participation.

500 Words Essay on Government

Introduction to government.

The government’s primary role is to safeguard the rights and freedoms of its citizens. This involves ensuring the security of the people, maintaining law and order, and providing public goods and services. A government has the responsibility to protect its citizens from internal and external threats, which is why it maintains law enforcement agencies and a military.

The government also plays a crucial role in economic regulation and stabilization. By controlling monetary and fiscal policies, it can influence the country’s economic trajectory, ensuring growth, stability, and equity. Furthermore, the government is responsible for the provision of public goods and services such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, and social welfare programs.

Forms of Government

In between these extremes, there are numerous variations, such as constitutional monarchies, where a monarch shares power with a constitutionally organized government, or oligarchies, where power rests with a small number of people.

The Importance of Good Governance

Good governance is integral to the effective functioning of a government. It is characterized by transparency, accountability, efficiency, and adherence to the rule of law. Good governance ensures that the government’s actions benefit the majority of the population and that public resources are used efficiently and ethically.

Conclusion: The Evolving Role of Government

In today’s rapidly changing world, the role of government is evolving. With the advent of technology and globalization, governments are not just confined to traditional roles but are increasingly involved in areas such as digital infrastructure, climate change, and global health crises.

As we move forward, the challenge for governments worldwide will be to adapt to these changes and continue to serve their citizens effectively. Understanding the nature, role, and complexities of government is crucial for us as we navigate the political landscape of the 21st century.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Americans’ Dismal Views of the Nation’s Politics

2. views of the u.s. political system, the federal government and federal-state relations, table of contents.

• The impact of partisan polarization
• Persistent concerns over money in politics
• Views of the parties and possible changes to the two-party system
• Other important findings
• Explore chapters of this report
• In their own words: Americans on the political system’s biggest problems
• In their own words: Americans on the political system’s biggest strengths
• Are there clear solutions to the nation’s problems?
• Evaluations of the political system
• Trust in the federal government
• Feelings toward the federal government
• The relationship between the federal and state governments
• Americans’ ratings of their House member, governor and local officials
• Party favorability ratings
• Most characterize their party positively
• Quality of the parties’ ideas
• Influence in congressional decision-making
• Views on limiting the role of money in politics
• Views on what kinds of activities can change the country for the better
• How much can voting affect the future direction of the country?
• Views of members of Congress
• In their own words: Americans’ views of the major problems with today’s elected officials
• How much do elected officials care about people like me?
• What motivates people to run for office?
• Quality of recent political candidates
• In elections, is there usually at least one candidate who shares your views?
• What the public sees as most important in political candidates
• Impressions of the people who will be running for president in 2024
• Views about presidential campaigns
• How much of an impact does who is president have on your life?
• Whose priorities should the president focus on?
• How different are the Republican and Democratic parties?
• Views of how well the parties represent people’s interests
• What if there were more political parties?
• Would more parties make solving problems easier or harder?
• How likely is it that an independent candidate will become president?
• Americans who feel unrepresented by the parties have highly negative views of the political system
• Views of the Electoral College
• Should the size of the U.S. House of Representatives change?
• Senate seats and population size
• Younger adults more supportive of structural changes
• Politics in a single word or phrase: An outpouring of negative sentiments
• Negative emotions prevail when Americans think about politics
• Americans say the tone of political debate in the country has worsened
• Which political topics get too much – and too little – attention?
• Majority of Americans find it stressful to talk politics with people they disagree with
• Acknowledgments

In evaluating the current and future state of politics in the United States, Americans express largely negative views. And trust in the federal government, which has been low for nearly two decades, hovers near record lows.

Only 4% of Americans now say the political system is working extremely or very well, with nearly three-quarters saying it isn’t. A majority (63%) say they have little or no confidence in the future of the U.S. political system.

Views of Congress , the Supreme Court and the political parties also remain deeply – and in some cases, historically – negative.

Meanwhile, there are wide partisan differences in views of several aspects of federal-state relations. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say they are very or extremely concerned that a person’s rights and protections might vary depending on which state they are in.

By contrast, a much larger share of Republicans than Democrats express concern that the federal government is doing too much on issues better left to state governments.

Only 4% of the public says the political system in the U.S. is working extremely or very well today, while 23% say it is working somewhat well. About seven-in-ten (72%) say the system is working not too (45%) or not at all (27%) well.

Looking to the future of the system, about six-in-ten Americans (63%) say they have not too much or no confidence at all. A third say they have some confidence, and just 4% express a lot of confidence.

Younger adults are somewhat more likely than older adults to say the political system is working well: 35% of adults under age 30 say the system is working at least somewhat well, compared with 29% of those 30 to 49 and 24% of those 50 and older.

But older people are more likely to express confidence when it comes to the future of the U.S. political system. About four-in-ten adults 65 and older (43%) say they have at least some confidence in the future of the political system. That drops to three-in-ten among adults under 30.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to express negative views of the political system.

Roughly eight-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (81%) say the political system is working not too or not at all well, including more than a third (37%) who say it is working not at all well. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, 64% say the political system is working either not too or not at all well, with 19% saying it is not working well at all.

Older Republicans are particularly likely to say the system is not working well: 88% of Republicans 50 and older say this, compared with 77% of those 30 to 49 and 61% of those under 30. Democrats do not differ by age on this question.

Republicans also express less confidence in the future of the U.S. political system: 68% of Republicans and 56% of Democrats say they have not too much or no confidence at all in its future. While Republicans of all age groups are about equally likely to have confidence in the political system’s future (31% have a lot of or some confidence), older Democrats are more likely to say this than younger Democrats. A majority of Democrats 50 and older (54%) say they have at least some confidence, compared with 37% of those under 50.

Just 16% of Americans say they trust the government in Washington to do the right thing just about always or most of the time. While public trust in government has been low for nearly two decades, the current measure is among the lowest in more than 70 years of polling.

Trust in the federal government is down 4 percentage points from last year and was somewhat higher in 2020 and 2021. The current measure is on par with public views in 2019.

For more on trust in the federal government over the last 70 years, please visit our trust interactive .

Trust in government by party

As in the past, trust in government is higher among those whose party holds the presidency. Today, a quarter of Democrats say they trust the government to do what is right at least most of the time, compared with just 8% of Republicans.

Democrats’ trust in government is now substantially higher than it was during the Trump administration but is down 8 points from the spring of 2021. In contrast, Republicans’ trust in government dropped between 2020 and 2021 but has changed little over the last few years.

Republicans’ current level of trust in the federal government is among the lowest since the question was first asked in the 1950s. Prior to Joe Biden’s presidency, GOP trust in government had only hit similar lows during the Obama administration.

As has been the case for more than a decade, a majority of Americans (59%) say they feel frustrated toward the federal government. About two-in-ten (21%) say they feel angry toward the government, while 18% say they are basically content.

These views have changed only modestly in recent years. A slightly higher share express anger today than did so last year and the year before. Anger is now slightly lower than it was in the summer of 2020.

Feelings about the federal government by party

The share of Democrats and Democratic leaners saying they are basically content with the government is similar to the share who said the same a year ago (27% today, 29% then). In 2021, Democrats were 16 percentage points more likely to say they felt content toward the government. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats (64%) express frustration toward the government, a share unchanged in the last year but 12 points higher than in 2021. The share of Democrats who say they are angry remains low – 9% say this today – but is up 5 points since 2021.

About a third of Republicans and Republican leaners (35%) say they feel angry toward the federal government, while 55% say they feel frustrated and just 9% say they feel content. These figures are largely unchanged in recent years.

Majority of Americans concerned rights and protections may be different in different states

A majority of Americans (54%) now say they are extremely or very concerned that the rights and protections a person has might be different depending on which state they are in. About three-in-ten (29%) say they are somewhat concerned about this, while 16% are not too or not at all concerned.

The share reporting they are extremely or very concerned about this has risen 11 points since May of 2022.

Democrats are particularly likely to express concern that rights and protections may vary across states. Seven-in-ten Democrats now say they are extremely or very concerned about this, up from 53% a year ago.

Among Republicans, the share who say they are at least very concerned is up 6 points, from 33% to 39%.

Some concerned the federal government is doing too much that should be left to states

The share expressing concern about the federal government doing too much on issues better left to state governments has also risen over the past year: 41% now say they are extremely or very concerned about this, compared with 34% in May 2022.

Republicans express higher levels of concern than Democrats that the federal government is doing too much. Roughly six-in-ten Republicans (62%) are extremely or very concerned about this, compared with 22% of Democrats.

The share of Republicans who are at least very concerned is up 8 points in the past year, while the share of Democrats who say this has increased by 4 points.

Some concerned states are not willing enough to work with the federal government

Overall, 41% of U.S. adults say they are extremely or very concerned about state governments not being willing enough to work with the federal government, up from 34% last year. Roughly a third (36%) say they are somewhat concerned about this, while 22% say they are not too or not at all concerned.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say they are concerned about state governments not being willing enough to work with the federal government: A majority of Democrats (54%) are extremely or very concerned about this. Just 27% of Republicans share that concern.

The share in each party who say they are at least very concerned about state governments’ unwillingness to work with the federal government has increased since 2022, by 9 points among Republicans and 6 points among Democrats.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Election 2024
• Election System & Voting Process
• Federal Government
• National Conditions
• Political Animosity
• Political Discourse
• Political Parties
• Political Polarization
• State & Local Government
• Trust in Government
• Trust, Facts & Democracy

In GOP Contest, Trump Supporters Stand Out for Dislike of Compromise

What americans know about their government, congress has long struggled to pass spending bills on time, how the gop won the turnout battle and a narrow victory in last year’s midterms, narrow majorities in u.s. house have become more common but haven’t always led to gridlock, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• Content Guidelines
• Privacy Policy

Essay on the State: Top 7 Essays | State | Political Science

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Here is a compilation of essays on the ‘State’ for class 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short essays on the ‘State’ especially written for school and college students.

Essay on the State

Essay Contents:

• Essay on the Functions of the State

Essay # 1. Definition of State:

There are too many definitions of the state. President Woodrow Wilson’s definition of the state is “a people organised for law within a definite territory.” Harold J. Laski defines the state as “a territorial society divided into government and subjects claiming, within its allotted physical area, a supremacy over all other institutions.”

According to R. M. MacIver, the state is- “An association which, acting through law as promulgated by a government, endowed to this end with coercive power, maintains within a community, territorially demarcated the universal external conditions of social order.”

Sir Thomas Holland’s definition is more elaborate:

“A state is a numerous assemblage of human beings generally occupying a certain territory, amongst whom the will of the majority of an ascertainable class of persons is, by the strength of such a majority or class, made to prevail against any of their number who opposes it.”

J. W. Garner’s definition is the most acceptable one because it contains all the attributes of the state. He defined the state as “a community of persons, more or less numerous; permanently occupying a definite territory, independent of external control, and possessing an organised government, to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.”

Although the scholars differ among themselves as to the definition of the state, they are at one with regard to the characteristics of the state. Authorities agree on certain essential properties of a state. These are population, territory, government and sovereignty.

The last mentioned element clothes the government with a monopoly of force for the preservation of peace and order and having a plentitude of authority within the state, independent of external control except that of international law.

Since a state cannot function under the law unless it is recognised by the members of the community of nations, such diplomatic recognition is often considered another property of the state.

Further, most political theorists emphasise on the purpose or end as an important element of the state.

Essay # 2. Evolution of the State:

The state is a growth, an evolution, the result of a gradual process running throughout all the known history of man and receding into remote and unknown past.

The story of the evolution of the state is one of long process. From a crude and tribal origin it has grown into the modern complex stature. But the process of evolution was of different fashions because of the diversified factors of time, region and political and socio-economic environments.

We may, however, safely take the following types of states as the broad divisions and stages in the growth of the state:

i. The Tribal State:

In the earliest stage the state was identified with the tribes which composed them. So the tribal state was the earliest from of the state in the world. In that tribal organisation the rights of the individuals were based on kinship. Allegiance to the state had nothing to do with the rulers or the territories. If there was any allegiance it was determined by blood relationship.

ii. The Oriental Empire:

We find some big states in the east flourishing on the banks of the principal rivers. Thus states grew up on the banks of the Indus, the Nile, the Euphrates and the Tigris. These river valley states were rich and prosperous because of the rich natural resources in those areas. The plenty of food, clothes and shelter led to organised political and social institutions.

These river valley states were like so many early empires separated from each other. Life in those big states was one of comfort and ease. But the people had no right. The rulers were all haughty despots. Their responsibilities to the subjects ended with realising taxes from them. The rulers combined in themselves political and religious authority.

Disobedience to the priest-Kings was considered a sacrilege. They ruled over the state with the strength of the sword. When the sword became blunt, the King was replaced by some more powerful one. The people obeyed them out of fear.

iii. The Greek City-States:

The third stage in the evolution of the state was the Greek city-states. These were called city-states because these states had little territory confined to the size of the city. The geographical condition of Greece separated by mountains the entire mainland into so many units facilitated the growth and development of so many small states based on the areas allotted to the cities.

For example, in the fifth century B. C. Attica was a small state where the total population did not exceed one lakh twenty thousand, of whom only forty thousand were citizens and the rest were non-citizens, comprising the slaves and women.

The governments of the city-states were of varied kinds like monarchy, aristocracy and oligarchy. The Greeks were warriors and patrons of art and literature. They were proud of their civilisations and considered the non-Greeks as uncivilised. There was no unity among the Greek city-states. So they fell an easy prey to Macedonia and were finally overshadowed by Rome.

iv. The Roman Empire:

Initially, Rome was a small state like the Greek city-states. It grew up on the fertile plains of the Tiber in 253 B.C. by a combination of several tribes. Monarchy was the form of the early period. The government was controlled by the nobles called the Patricians. The common people were called the Plebeians and they had no share in the government. Monarchy yielded place to the republic in about 500 B.C. when the people became the repository of power. Rome could not go much ahead in democracy because she was involved in warfare with the neighbouring states.

After conquering the enemy states, Rome began to advance in territory both towards the west and the south. All the countries around the Mediterranean came under the direct control of the sprawling Roman empire which included England. In this way, Rome became the biggest empire known to history. Later on, democracy was replaced by military dictatorship.

It is Rome that gave the world the first well-organised and well-governed state. The Roman system of law and Roman administration became very popular. The biggest achievement of the Roman empire is that it brought together diversified people and established a kind of cohesion among them under a common system of administration and justice.

If the Greek city states were known for liberty, democracy and local independence, the Roman empire earned eminence for unity, order and universal law. While Greece had democracy without unity, Rome had unity minus democracy. The apparent strength of Rome proved fatal for its existence. So the Roman empire began to decline.

v. The Feudal States:

The destruction of the Roman empire by the Teutonic barbarians is an important factor in the growth of the feudal states in Europe. The Teutonic’s had as their political institution the tribal state, which did not know unity, order or universal laws which were the very basis of the Roman empire. Their Kings were the successful war lords.

The conception of feudalism came up as an intermediate body between the Roman imperial system and the Teutonic way of life. When the Roman empire fell, the nobles became the real repository of power. The result was that in the place of the centralised state authority came the weak central King. There the real power lay with the feudal chiefs.

Ownership of land was the foundation, on which was built the hierarchy of the feudal system. According to feudalism, the Kings acted as the vassals of the Emperor who was himself a vassal of God. The King was loyal to the Emperor who in his turn was to be loyal to God. The King would distribute the land among the tenants-in-chief, who, in his turn, distributed land among the tenants.

The tenants were to be loyal to the tenants-in-chief and the tenants-in-chief were to be loyal to the King. The land distribution system went on from the tenant to the serfs. The immediately lower rank would be loyal to the immediately higher rank. In this way, he rigid monolithic structure of the Roman empire was replaced by a complete stratification of the socio-economic life. In the place of the Roman law came the customs and traditions.

The highest authority had no contact with the lowest rung of the society. Ownership of land was the crux of the feudal state. Thus feudal system is more an economic institution than a political one.

vi. Modern Nation-States:

The final stage in the evolution of the states is the modern nation states. This is an establishment of an integrated land usually on the basis of a nation with loyalty of the people to the central authority, be it the King or the parliament. Thus the modern state does not admit of hierarchial division of authority of the feudal system. On the other hand, the people are bound together on the basis of nationalism.

The growth of the modern nation states is attributable to the commercial and industrial capitalism which could not brook the obstacle of the feudal order. At the beginning the nation state had absolute monarchy with a centralised control. It dispensed with the authority of the Pope and feudal nobility. The process got the impetus from the Renaissance and the Reformation.

There came philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli to support the absolute monarchy. The coming of the modem states made the atmosphere congenial for the international law, which recognised the equality and sovereign status of the modern states.

Initially the people submitted to the centralised authority because it was more beneficial than feudalism. But the people began to raise objections against the absolutism of the King. The absolute monarchy took shelter under the theory of divine rights of the kingship. But the popular urge for liberty could not be suppressed forever.

In 1688 the people of England deposed their despised King James II and wrested from him a bundle of rights called the Bill of Rights. Again, in 1789 the people of France rose in arms against the absolutism of King Louis XVI and overthrew the monarchy and established instead a republic in France.

The same spirit began to tumble the autocratic regime in Central Europe where Italy, Germany and Hungary established states for each nation. The countries of the Middle East were groaning in the absence of nation states. They got this in the Treaty of Paris which closed the First World War. A further march in that direction was possible after the Second World War. India became independent and a nation state in 1947 in the wake by the Second World War.

Essay # 3. Purpose of the State:

Controversy exists among the political thinkers with regard to the exact purpose of the state. Here are two broad schools which put divergent purposes for the state. They veer round the relation between the state and the individuals.

According to one school, the individual is the end and the state is only the means. The other view is that the state is the end and the individuals are just the means of it. But both the schools are at one with the need of the state.

In between these two extreme views are to be accommodated the Socialist School which wants wider power for the state, the Utilitarian School which assesses everything in the yardstick of maximum happiness for the individuals, and the General Welfare School which wants the state to fulfil  the welfare and promotion of human civilisation.

But there is an extreme view of the anarchists that there is no need for the state. Then comes Mahatma Gandhi’s view that the state is an enemy of truth and Ahimsa. We shall now discuss these views one by one.

I. The Individual is an End and the State is a Means:

This school is represented by John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer and Adam Smith who believed that the state is only a means to an end. What is that end? The end is the happiness and welfare of the individuals. This band of philosophers gave maximum importance to the individuals by subordinating the state to the individuals. This theory is based on two premises – reduction of the function of the state to the barest necessities and maximum liberty to the individuals.

According to the individualists, the state is an evil, because the state poaches on the free play of the liberty of the individuals. It is necessary, like policeman is necessary, to protect the individuals from the dangers in the society from the other unbecoming individuals. So the state is a necessary evil.

The individualists want the state to discharge only two functions-internally to maintain law and order in the country and externally to defend the country from the foreign aggressions. The state’s main function should be to protect and defend and it must not interfere with the development or progress of the individuals.

John Stuart Mill had no hesitation to hold that the best government is one that interferes least with the individuals. The interference of the state will result in dwarfing the inner faculties of the individuals and killing their initiatives. Adam Smith, who is known for free economic competition among the individuals, is another campaigner of this view.

According to Smith, if the state intrudes into the economic affairs by restraining trade there will be black-marketing, hoarding and profiteering. Herbert Spencer’s defence of the theory is from the biological point of view. He believed that in the nature there is a law of “survival of the fittest” . This should be applied in the state where the strong individuals will and should stand by competition and the weaker ones will and should disappear.

II. The State is an End and the Individual is a Means to the End:

The opposite view of the individualist theory is the idealist view which considers the state as the repository of all functions and the individuals just as means to the end of the state. It is natural that the state must be omnipotent and Omni-competent and must perform all functions relating to the individuals. So the state must control all the activities of the individuals in all avenues of life, social, political, economic and spiritual.

The state is endowed with a moral personality. To say in the words of Friedrich Hegel- “The state is the march of God on earth. It represents the social consciousness and to obey the state is to obey your best self.” According to the idealists, the individuals can attain maximum benefits from the state and so they should completely identify themselves with the state and render unhesitating obedience to the state.

According to Thomas I Hill Green, the individuals have no place outside the state. To quote him- “The state is indispensable to the fullest growth of personality of man.” The personality of the individuals, if any, must be merged with the personality of the state. Whatever the state does it does for the welfare of the individuals. So the individuals have no rights against the state. Their real liberty will thrive only under the care of the state.

This theory was the umbrella under which the Nazis in Germany and the Fascists in Italy took shelter to obliterate all the individual rights. The State became a thorough-going dictatorship that muzzled the spirit of the Individuals and gagged their mouth.

According to the Nazis and the Fascists- “The state is an imperishable organism whose life extends beyond that of the individuals who are its transitory elements. These are born, grow up, die and are substituted by others, while the state always retains its identity and its patrimony of ideas and sentiments, which each generation receives from the past and transmits to the future.”

“In their opinion, the individual’s happiness or individual’s welfare is not the end or purpose of the state. On the other hand, the welfare and existence of the state is the supreme end or aim of the individual’s life. He should willingly sacrifice his life and happiness for the sake of the state. He must subordinate his wishes to the state. It is emphasised that the state has its own purposes of preservation, expansion and perfection and these are superior to the purpose of the individuals who compose it. It sounds grandiose to say that the state has ends superior to those of the individual composing the state.” But the idealists have no conclusive answers as to why the individuals should subordinate their own ends to those of the state. This theory is bound to encourage dictatorship and arbitrary authority.

III. The Socialist Theory:

The socialists favour maximum possible powers and functions for the state. The state stands for widest scope of functions for the advancement of the people. According to the socialists, the state should control and regulate the economic activities of the people. There should not be an competition or profit motives.

All goods should be produced and regulated by the state. The total income of the state should be equitably distributed among the people, each in proportion to his labour. The socialists believe that “From each according to his capacity and to each according to the quantity and quality of work put in.”

IV. The Utilitarian View:

The utilitarians, the chief of whom is Jeremy Bentham, advocated that the main purpose of the state is to bring maximum happiness to the people. According to Bentham- “Greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the aim or purpose of the state.” The usefulness of any state is done by the touchstone of the happiness or sorrow that will fall on the people. So all state actions should be judged in the touchstone of the real pleasure or sorrowness on the people.

According to Frederick Pollock- “The formula of greatest happiness of greatest number can be made a hook to put in the nostrils of the monster of the state, that he may be tamed and harnessed to the chariot of utility.”

V. The General Welfare Theory:

This theory is a compromise by softening the rigours of both individualism and socialism. According o the exponents of this view, there are three main purposes of the state.

(i) The state should ensure the welfare of the people;

(ii) The state will strive for the collective welfare of the people in their collective capacity and

(iii) The state should promote the civilisation of the people.

VI. The Anarchist Theory:

According to the anarchists, there is no necessity of the state. They consider the state as the arch enemy of the individuals. Men are by nature cooperative and they can regulate their own affairs without the intervention of the state. It is the state that hinders the cooperative instinct of the people, who are forced to turn unruly and criminal and so the state should be abolished. This has been stated in a clear-cut expression of Prince Peter Kropotkin- “The state has no natural and historical justification. It is a great hindrance in the path of human progress.”

Essay # 4. Attributes of the State:

1. population:.

Population is to the state as flesh is to the body. There cannot be any state without the people inhabiting it. The population comprise the people permanently living in the state. The nomads and the gypsies who lead a wandering life cannot make a population for the purpose of the state.

There is no fixed number of population for any state. Greece, which had city-states, had a small population. For that reason, we find Plato and Aristotle supporting small states with small population. Plato was specific in his size of the population and he put the ceiling at 500 people.

J. J. Rousseau was another political thinker who shared the view that the state should be small, both in size and population.

To say in the words of Rousseau:

“The more the population, the less the liberty.” He put ten thousand beyond which the population of the state must not exceed.

The modern states, however, have a tendency to have big size, both in territory and population. Several thousand square miles are there in the big states like China, the USA and India. Each of them has several crores of population. Monaco is a small state. She has the smallest population which is only 30,000.

The most populous state in the world is China who has a population of 1,102,000,000. The most populous states have the advantage of bigger manpower and a self-sufficient economy. A state with a large population is also viable to become a world power.

2. Territory:

Territory is essential for a state as the bones are for the body. Every state must have a definite land of its own with a settled population in it. There are as many as 177 states in the world today. These are of different sizes, small and large.

The smallest state is Grenada with an area of 344 sq km. while the largest state is the erstwhile USSR with an area of 22,402,200 sq. km. The land that falls within the geographical limit of a state is not the total territory of it.

The territory of a state includes not only the land surface but the underground mineral resources, the rivers inside the state and portion of the sea touching the shore of the state, measuring the sea-belt ranging from three and half miles to eighteen miles. In addition, the air space above the land is also an integral part of the state.

It may be noted that the land covering the offices of the foreign diplomats like the Ambassadors and High Commissioners is to be excluded from the territory of the state. From this it follows that the land occupied by the diplomatic staff, like the Ambassadors and High Commissioners, in all countries of the world must fall within the territorial limit of the state, to which the diplomats belong.

It is ideal for every state to have a compact territory for the purpose of close contact and defence of the country. But this does not always happen. For example, the Hawaii Island of the USA is cut off from the mainland of the USA and there are few thousand miles that separate them.

There is no road connection between them. Only means of transport is the air and sea. The improved service of the ships and aeroplanes has made it possible for the USA to maintain her link with Hawaii.

3. Government:

Mere existence of the population does not make a state. There must be some authority to regulate the people under law and order. This authority, which forms a part of the population, is called the Government. It is the government that makes, enforces and expresses the will of the people. Settled relation of control and obedience is a must in every state.

This relation can be effected only by the government which is an agency of the state. The entire population of a state cannot do it It must be done through an agency. Thus the government is not only the agency of the state but of the population also. So the government is as much an essential attribute of the state as the population and territory.

The government consists of three organs. They are legislature, executive and judiciary. Each of them has separate field of action. The legislature makes law, the executive enforces it and the judiciary interprets it. This obtains in all states irrespective of the forms of the government, no matter whether it is a democracy or dictatorship, parliamentary or presidential.

Even if there is a change in the government either by election or a coup etat it may affect the government but not the state.

4. Sovereignty:

This element of supremacy in all affairs, internal and external, is the most important attribute of the state. The state is supreme in all internal matters. It can carry on its programme and policy throughout the length and breadth of its area. It can punish any wrong-doer anywhere within its own territory.

The state is also externally sovereign and carries on its foreign and economic policy in the globe. Every state is equal to other states in international law. It is this element of sovereignty that distinguishes the state from all other associations. A small state like Grenada is as much sovereign as a big state like China.

Bihar, Punjab, or Uttar Pradesh are not states:

Bihar is a unit of the state of India. India is a state, but Bihar not. In Bihar there is population, territory and government. But Bihar does not have sovereignty. Thus the absence of sovereignty negatives the concept of the state. For the same reason, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh are not state. Although we talk of the state of Punjab, state of Uttar Pradesh, etc. this type of expression is not the language of political science.

The UNO and the Azad Hind (under Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose) are not state:

The UNO is an international organisation established after the Second World War. It has a parliament called the Legislative Assembly, an executive called the Security Council and a judiciary called the International Court of Justice. Besides, it has several international agencies, through which it functions all over the world.

It has also sovereignty because its writs are obeyed all over the world. So it has two characteristics of the state, namely government and sovereignty. But it lacks in two essential elements of the state, namely population and territory. The UNO has no population of its own. It has no definite territory either. These two deficiencies stand in the way of its becoming a state within the meaning of political science.

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose established a free Government in exile in Singapore. His aim was to carry the Azad Hind Government in India by driving out the British from India. The Azad Hind Government had its own national flag, currency, postal stamps, army, etc. Bose had diplomatic immunity as enjoyed by the envoys of any sovereign state.

It was recognised by Germany, Italy and Japan. Yet, Azad Hind could not be a state because it had no population or territory of its own. It was a government raised in a foreign land, namely Malaya. But the people of Malaya were not the population of Azad Hind. The expected population of Azad Hind was to be the Indians. So Azad Hind could not be called a state.

Palestine is a State:

Palestine Liberation Organisation, which is better known as the PLO, was an institution that claimed the state of Israel as its territory. Under the leadership of Yasser Arafat the PLO was a fugitive institution having no settled population or definite territory. India recognised Yasser Arafat and granted him diplomatic immunity.

But before 15 November 1988, the PLO, was outside Israel. On 15 November 1988, the state of Palestine was declared with Jurusalem as its capital by the Chairman of the PLO, Yasser Arafat in the Israeli occupied west bank of Gaza strip. Algeria, Iraq and Malaya were the first three states to recognise Palastine.

India, then USSR and Afghanistan followed suit. Thus Palestine has all the attributes of a state and so it is a state. But until 15 November 1988 it was not a state.

Idea and Concept of the State:

A line of distinction may be drawn between the idea of the state and the concept of the state. The idea of the state is what the state should be in the future. The concept of the state is what the state is in actual practice.

According to J. K. Bluntschli- “The idea of the state refers to a picture, in splendour of imaginary perfection of the stale as not yet realised but to be striven for and the conception of the state has to do with the nature and essential characteristics of actual states.” To put this in a simple way, the idea of the state is a perfect state complete in all respects as per the speculations of the political philosophers.

The conception of the state consists of the common essentials of the state such as population, territory, government and sovereignty. This aspect of the matter is further explained by J. W. Burgess in the words: “The idea of the state is the state perfect and complete; the concept of the state is making and the development of the world, the two will tend to became identical.”

The idea of the state varies from age to age. For the ancient Greeks, city-state was ideal. In the nineteenth century, the idea of the state was one nation, one state. But in the twentieth century the world state is the ideal of the state.

According to J. W. Burgess- “The state is a gradual and continuous development of human society out of a grossly imperfect beginning through crude but improving form of manifestation towards a perfect and universal organisation of mankind.”

The State and Other Associations:

Before we go to point out the relation between the state and other associations, we should know what is an association. A group of persons having some common views when organised to realise certain common objectives is called an association. So an association has some definite aims which have to be realised through the cooperative efforts of its members.

As a matter of fact, all associations are some organisations directed against realisation of certain human wants and social instincts. This happened in periods of history. But a modern man has some more wants like political, economic, religious, cultural and aesthetic instincts.

A state is a political instinct. The labour union is an economic instinct. The Brahmo Samaj is a religious instinct. The Lalit Kala Academy is a cultural instinct. So we find that all the important facets of our life are reflected through the associations.

The state is one of the associations. It is a political association. Like all other associations, the state has come into existence to fulfill the political instinct of man. It strives at certain and specified ends.

The pluralist school of political philosophers, particularly R. M. MacIver, opined that the state is an association, the fundamental association created for the purpose of the maintenance and the development of external condition of the social system. Its object is to make social life viable. The state is a condition precedent for a social life. This view is, however, erroneous, because the state stands on a higher platform.

The State is the Highest Association:

Although the pluralists hold that the state is an ordinary association, this view is not correct. It is not proper to reduce the state to the status of an ordinary association. The state is the supreme type of association, it being superior to all other associations. It is for this reason that the state is said to be the association of all associations. It is the state that creates the conditions for the growth of other associations.

But for the state, all other associations would not be possible, because the state maintains the law and order inductive to the growth and functioning of other associations. The ordinary associations are supreme within their own spheres but the state is supreme not only internally but externally also. The state is a permanent body.

But other associations are temporary. The ordinary associations have limited scope and aim for the development of its members. But the state aims at the all-round development of its citizens for all times to come. So the state is the genus, other associations are species.

Essay # 5. Difference between the State and Other Associations:

In the first place, the state has a territory of its own.  Every state, whether big or small, must have its territorial boundaries which are of permanent nature. Other associations are non-territorial in the sense that an association has no territorial limits.

An association may have a very local field like Delhi University Students’ Union. It may have an all-state area like the All India Congress Committee. It may also have its area all over the world like Young Men’s Christian Association.

In the second place, the membership of the state is compulsory, but the membership of other associations is optional. Every man must be a citizen of one state which is the membership of the state. He cannot remain a non-citizen.

But a man can remain a non-member of an association. One person who is a Christian and young may not be a member of the Young Men’s Christian Association. Nobody can compel him to be its member.

In the third place, membership of the state is singular, but the membership of other association may be both singular and plural. One individual must be a citizen of only one state. He cannot be a citizen of more than one state.

But a member of one association may be member of as many associations as he wishes. For example, a member of the Delhi University Students’ Association may be at the same time a member of All India Congress Committee and Young Men’s Christian Association.

In the fourth place, the state is sovereign, i.e., supreme in all matters, internal and external. But there is no sovereignty with the other associations. This is the most important touchstone that holds the state in upper elevation from the other associations.

In the fifth place, the state is a permanent entity. Other associations may be permanent or temporary. Thus the Delhi University Students’ Union came into existence after the creation of the Delhi University. It may be dissolved by the authorities of the university. But the state of India is in existence from time immemorial. It will also continue forever.

In the sixth place, the state has the police and military organ to carry out its work even by force. This element is lacking in other associations. This power of coercion is a vital point of difference between the state and other associations.

In the seventh place, the state has diversified functions, while other associations have a singular or limited objects and purposes. Even the objects and purposes of all other associations are regulated by the state.

The state is to maintain law and order, defend the country and protect the land and the people from foreign aggression. In addition, the state has to look after agriculture, education and other welfare measures. So it is said that the state is the most powerful of all the associations.

The State and the Government:

The two expressions – state and government are very often used in a confused way. Many think that these two terms are the same. This confusion is not only with the laymen but with the important persons also. So we find the French King Louis XIV saying- “I am the state”.

What he meant was that he was the government of France, not the state of France. The same misconception was noticeable with the Stuart Kings of England.

In political science, the state and the government are quite different. One cannot be identified with the other.  

The following analysis will show that these two terms are quite different:

First, the state is the whole, while the government is a part of it. The state is made up of four things, namely population, territory, sovereignty and government. The state has within it the entire population living within the length and breadth of its area.

But the government consists of only a small fraction of the entire population. But the government is the spokesman or agency of the state. The state cannot function of its own. It is the government through which the state functions.

Secondly, the state is the principal body, while the government is the subordinate agency of the body. We may compare the state with a company and the government may be compared with the Board of Directors of that company. All the functions of company are discharged and carried out by the Board of Directors.

Thirdly, the state is permanent, while the government-is temporary. England is a state which will remain forever. But the government of England is temporary. After every general election a new government is formed by either the Conservative Party or by the Labour Party.

When a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, the government must go. But the end of the government has got nothing to do with the state. The state of England will continue forever.

Fourthly, the state is abstract, but the government is concrete. In attributes, all states are the same. But the government differs from country to county. The USA and China are both states and there is no difference so far as the state are concerned. But there is a difference in the form of government.

The USA is a democracy, while China is a dictatorship. Again, England and the USA have no difference with regard to statehood. But the government of these two countries is different. The form of government in England is unitary, but it is federal in the form of government in the USA.

Essay # 6. Difference between State and Society:

In the first place, the state is a community of persons organised for law within a definite territory. All the people living within the territorial jurisdiction of the state are its members. But a society knows no territorial limits.

It covers the whole range of human relations, i.e., social, economic, political and religious. So, the society has a wider compass than the state. It is all-embracing and all comprehensive. In the second place, the state is related to a territory and its boundaries are well-defined. But a society cannot be restricted to any territorial framework. For example, the Buddhists constitute a society. The Buddhist society is spread all over the world transcending the boundaries of several states.

A society may also be confined to a particular state, when its extent is narrower than the state. For example, the Anglo-Indians who make up a society are found only in India.

In the third place, membership of the state is compulsory. But the membership of a society is optional. The society is purely a voluntary association.

In the fourth place, the state has the power of coercion, which the society does not have. If the laws of the state are violated the state will punish the offenders. The only authority of the society is social customs, conventions and moral persuasions.

Many people make no difference between the state and the society. Even political thinkers like Plato and Aristode fell into the same fallacy by identifying the state with the society. The later idealist philosophers like Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Hegel considered the state co-extensive with the society.

There are some common features between the state and the society. Sometimes, one society is co-terminus with the members of the state. For example, the Jews, who by themselves make a society, constitute the state of Israel.

So Ernest Barker rightly observed- “State and society overlap, they blend, they borrow from one another. But roughly we may say that the area of the one is voluntary cooperation; its energy that of goodwill, its method that of elasticity; while the area of the other is that of mechanical action, its energy forces, its method rigidity.”

Essay # 7. Functions of the State:

There was an old theory of the individualists that the state should simply discharge some police functions like protecting the people from foreign aggression and maintain law and order. This theory is backdated now. The modern concept of the functions of the state is that it should play a positive role in all affairs of the citizens.

Its function is the well-being of the entire body of the citizens. So C. D. Burns rightly held that the state should contribute “to the perfection of national life, to the development of the nation’s health and well-being, its morality and its intelligence.” In the background of the above premises the functions of the state may be divided into two classes.

(i) Essential or compulsory and

(ii) Non-essential or optional.

(i) Essential or Compulsory Functions:

Protecting the individuals from all internal and external danger which is otherwise known as the police functions is the essential or compulsory functions of the state.

These are discussed below:

1. Defending the country from all foreign invasions. It is the primary duty of all states to protect the citizens from the enemy attacks from outside.

2. The second essential function of the state is to maintain law and order inside the state. Only by maintaining peace and public order the state can protect the life, liberty and property of the people. This includes maintaining property and contract rights, regulation of holdings and administration of civil and criminal justice.

The third essential function is to have relation with foreign countries. No state can live in isolation. It must cultivate diplomatic relations with the other countries.

(ii) Non-Essential or Optional Functions:

The essential functions mentioned above are all bare necessities for the very existence of the state. When the state matures in existence it must adopt some benevolent functions for the welfare of the people. So these optional functions are also known as the welfare functions.

The first non-essential function of the state is the education of the people. Plato was the first to emphasise on a state education. The state can patronise education by directly controlling the education system. The state also can refrain from intervening in the educational matter directly and just encourage and finance it from outside. This happened in India during the Maurya and the Gupta age. In India today right to education is considered a fundamental right.

The second important optional function of the state is to look after the public health and provide medical relief to the citizens.

Woodrow Wilson on Essential Functions of State:

(i) Maintenance of law and order and the protection of life and property from violence and robbery;

(ii) Fixing legal relations between man and his wife and between the parents and children;

(iii) Regulation of the holding, transmission and interchange of property and the determination of its liability for credit or crime;

(iv) Determination of contract rights between individuals;

(v) Definition and punishment of crime;

(vi) Administration of justice in civil cases;

(vii) Determination of political duties, privileges and relations of citizens; and

(viii) Dealings of the state with foreign powers and its protection from foreign aggression.

Woodrow Wilson on Non-essential Functions of State:

(i) Regulation of trade and industry, coinage, weights and measures, tariffs, navigation laws;

(ii) Regulation of labour;

(iii) Maintenance of roads and communication;

(iv) Manufacture and distribution of gas, maintenance of waterworks;

(v) Maintenance of postal and telegraphic systems;

(vi) Sanitation, including regulation of industries and trades for sanitary purposes;

(vii) Education;

(viii) Care of the poor and the incapable;

(ix) Care and cultivation of forests and stocking of rivers with fish;

(x) Sumptuary laws such as prohibition laws.

There cannot be a strong state if the people are weak, sick or physically or mentally disable. A modern function of the state is to encourage family planning which is a part of the public health programme. The state undertakes measures to supply drinking water and keep the drains of the city neat and clean.

The third important non-essential function is to regulate trade and industry. In the past the trade and industries were left to the private individuals and the state would not poke its nose in it. This system made the rich richer and the poor poorer, because the profits from the industries and business accumulated in the hands of the capitalist.

So modern states have adopted schemes to directly control and regulate the trade and industry so that the profit earned from the trade and industry may be used in the welfare of the people by making roads, building bridges, establishing schools, colleges, etc.

The fourth optional function of the state is to build and maintain public utilities like railways, post and telegraphs, radios, telephones, roads, bridges, colleges, libraries, parks and zoos. These are the modern amenities and recreations for the citizens.

The fifth non-essential function of the state is to eradicate poverty. This can be done by arranging employment opportunities in various government avenues. Recently the government of India has made right to work a fundamental right. The government of India has also shown its anxiety to provide reasonable earning to the industrial workers by fixing a minimum wage for them.

Finally, it is also the optional concern of the state to make suitable laws to ameliorate the social, economic and moral life of the people. Thus women’s right to property, widows’ right to remarry and prohibition if the Sati are some of the measures, in that direction. Providing pension 60 the old people, providing employment to the backward communities and providing job opportunities to the physically handicapped persons are other functions in that list.

Functions that are Excluded from the Purview of the Functions of the State:

There are some functions which the state must not do. According to R.M. MacIver, the state should not control the press or the public opinion. It should refrain from curbing the political parties. It will be unfair for the state to poke its nose into the customs, culture and outfits of the people. But if the custom is too shocking like human sacrifice or if the dress of the people is indecent, the state can definitely intervene.

Related Articles:

• Difference between Society and State | Political Theory
• Essay on Sovereignty: Top 7 Essays | Sovereignty | Political Science
• Essay on Political Science: Top 9 Essays | India | Political Science
• Essay on Liberty: Top 4 Essays | World | Political Science

Upload and Share Your Article:

• Description *
• Your Name *
• Your Email ID *
• Upload Your File Drop files here or Select files Max. file size: 3 MB, Max. files: 5.

Essay , Essay on the State , Political Science , State

Upload Your Knowledge on Political science:

Privacy overview.

Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025

The former president and his backers aim to strengthen the power of the White House and limit the independence of federal agencies.

Donald J. Trump intends to bring independent regulatory agencies under direct presidential control. Credit... Doug Mills/The New York Times

Supported by

• Share full article

By Jonathan Swan ,  Charlie Savage and Maggie Haberman

• Published July 17, 2023 Updated July 18, 2023

Donald J. Trump and his allies are planning a sweeping expansion of presidential power over the machinery of government if voters return him to the White House in 2025, reshaping the structure of the executive branch to concentrate far greater authority directly in his hands.

Their plans to centralize more power in the Oval Office stretch far beyond the former president’s recent remarks that he would order a criminal investigation into his political rival, President Biden, signaling his intent to end the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence from White House political control.

Mr. Trump and his associates have a broader goal: to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House, according to a review of his campaign policy proposals and interviews with people close to him.

Mr. Trump intends to bring independent agencies — like the Federal Communications Commission, which makes and enforces rules for television and internet companies, and the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces various antitrust and other consumer protection rules against businesses — under direct presidential control.

He wants to revive the practice of “impounding” funds, refusing to spend money Congress has appropriated for programs a president doesn’t like — a tactic that lawmakers banned under President Richard Nixon.

He intends to strip employment protections from tens of thousands of career civil servants, making it easier to replace them if they are deemed obstacles to his agenda. And he plans to scour the intelligence agencies, the State Department and the defense bureaucracies to remove officials he has vilified as “the sick political class that hates our country.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Advertisement

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Primary tabs.

These are the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended to December 1, 2023 1 . Click on any rule to read it.

• RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
• Rule 1 . Scope and Purpose
• Rule 2 . One Form of Action
• Rule 3 . Commencing an Action
• Rule 4 . Summons
• Rule 4.1 . Serving Other Process
• Rule 5 . Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
• Rule 5.1 . Constitutional Challenge to a Statute—Notice, Certification, and Intervention
• Rule 5.2 . Privacy Protection For Filings Made with the Court
• Rule 6 . Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers
• Rule 7 . Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers
• Rule 7.1 . Disclosure Statement
• Rule 8 . General Rules of Pleading
• Rule 9 . Pleading Special Matters
• Rule 10 . Form of Pleadings
• Rule 11 . Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
• Rule 12 . Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
• Rule 13 . Counterclaim and Crossclaim
• Rule 14 . Third-Party Practice
• Rule 15 . Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
• Rule 16 . Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management
• Rule 17 . Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity; Public Officers
• Rule 18 . Joinder of Claims
• Rule 19 . Required Joinder of Parties
• Rule 20 . Permissive Joinder of Parties
• Rule 21 . Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties
• Rule 22 . Interpleader
• Rule 23 . Class Actions
• Rule 23.1 . Derivative Actions
• Rule 23.2 . Actions Relating to Unincorporated Associations
• Rule 24 . Intervention
• Rule 25 . Substitution of Parties
• Rule 26 . Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
• Rule 27 . Depositions to Perpetuate Testimony
• Rule 28 . Persons Before Whom Depositions May Be Taken
• Rule 29 . Stipulations About Discovery Procedure
• Rule 30 . Depositions by Oral Examination
• Rule 31 . Depositions by Written Questions
• Rule 32 . Using Depositions in Court Proceedings
• Rule 33 . Interrogatories to Parties
• Rule 34 . Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes
• Rule 35 . Physical and Mental Examinations
• Rule 36 . Requests for Admission
• Rule 37 . Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions
• Rule 38 . Right to a Jury Trial; Demand
• Rule 39 . Trial by Jury or by the Court
• Rule 40 . Scheduling Cases for Trial
• Rule 41 . Dismissal of Actions
• Rule 42 . Consolidation; Separate Trials
• Rule 43 . Taking Testimony
• Rule 44 . Proving an Official Record
• Rule 44.1 . Determining Foreign Law
• Rule 45 . Subpoena
• Rule 46 . Objecting to a Ruling or Order
• Rule 47 . Selecting Jurors
• Rule 48 . Number of Jurors; Verdict; Polling
• Rule 49 . Special Verdict; General Verdict and Questions
• Rule 50 . Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling
• Rule 51 . Instructions to the Jury; Objections; Preserving a Claim of Error
• Rule 52 . Findings and Conclusions by the Court; Judgment on Partial Findings
• Rule 53 . Masters
• Rule 54 . Judgment; Costs
• Rule 55 . Default; Default Judgment
• Rule 56 . Summary Judgment
• Rule 57 . Declaratory Judgment
• Rule 58 . Entering Judgment
• Rule 59 . New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
• Rule 60 . Relief from a Judgment or Order
• Rule 61 . Harmless Error
• Rule 62 . Stay of Proceedings to Enforce a Judgment
• Rule 62.1 . Indicative Ruling on a Motion for Relief That is Barred by a Pending Appeal
• Rule 63 . Judge's Inability to Proceed
• Rule 64 . Seizing a Person or Property
• Rule 65 . Injunctions and Restraining Orders
• Rule 65.1 . Proceedings Against a Security Provider
• Rule 66 . Receivers
• Rule 67 . Deposit into Court
• Rule 68 . Offer of Judgment
• Rule 69 . Execution
• Rule 70 . Enforcing a Judgment for a Specific Act
• Rule 71 . Enforcing Relief For or Against a Nonparty
• Rule 71.1 . Condemning Real or Personal Property
• Rule 72 . Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order
• Rule 73 . Magistrate Judges: Trial by Consent; Appeal
• Rule 74 . [Abrogated (Apr. 11, 1997, eff. Dec. 1, 1997).]
• Rule 75 . [Abrogated (Apr. 11, 1997, eff. Dec. 1, 1997).]
• Rule 76 . [Abrogated (Apr. 11, 1997, eff. Dec. 1, 1997).]
• [Rule 71A. Renumbered Rule 71.1]
• Rule 77 . Conducting Business; Clerk's Authority; Notice of an Order or Judgment
• Rule 78 . Hearing Motions; Submission on Briefs
• Rule 79 . Records Kept by the Clerk
• Rule 80 . Stenographic Transcript as Evidence
• Rule 81 . Applicability of the Rules in General; Removed Actions
• Rule 82 . Jurisdiction and Venue Unaffected
• Rule 83 . Rules by District Courts; Judge's Directives
• Rule 84 . Abrogated, eff. Dec. 1, 2015
• Rule 85 . Title
• Rule 86 . Effective Dates
• Rule 87 Civil Rules Emergency
• XII. APPENDIX OF FORMS (U.S. Courts site)
• Rule A . Scope of Rules
• Rule B . In Personam Actions: Attachment and Garnishment
• Rule C . In Rem Actions: Special Provisions
• Rule D . Possessory, Petitory, and Partition Actions
• Rule E . Actions in Rem and Quasi in Rem: General Provisions
• Rule F . Limitation of Liability
• Rule G . Forfeiture Actions in Rem
• Rules 1 - 7

1 Title amended December 29, 1948, effective October 20, 1949.

Historical Note

The original Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts were adopted by order of the Supreme Court on Dec. 20, 1937, transmitted to Congress by the Attorney General on Jan. 3, 1938, and became effective on Sept. 16, 1938.

The Rules have been amended Dec. 28, 1939, eff. Apr. 3, 1941; Dec. 27, 1946, eff. Mar. 19, 1948; Dec. 29, 1948, eff. Oct. 20, 1949; Apr. 30, 1951, eff. Aug. 1, 1951; Apr. 17, 1961, eff. July 19, 1961; Jan. 21, 1963, eff. July 1, 1963; Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Dec. 4, 1967, eff. July 1, 1968; Mar. 30, 1970, eff. July 1, 1970; Mar. 1, 1971, eff. July 1, 1971; Nov. 20, 1972, and Dec. 18, 1972, eff. July 1, 1975; Apr. 29, 1980, eff. Aug. 1, 1980; Oct. 21, 1980, Pub. L. 96–481, title II, §205(a), (b), 94 Stat. 2330; Jan. 12, 1983, Pub. L. 97–462, §§2–4, 96 Stat. 2527–2530, eff. Feb. 26, 1983; Apr. 28, 1983, eff. Aug. 1, 1983; Apr. 29, 1985, eff. Aug. 1, 1985; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 25, 1988, eff. Aug. 1, 1988; Nov. 18, 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §§7047(b), 7049, 7050, 102 Stat. 4401; Apr. 30, 1991, eff. Dec. 1, 1991; Dec. 9, 1991, Pub. L. 102–198, §11, 105 Stat. 1626; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993; Apr. 27, 1995, eff. Dec. 1, 1995; Apr. 23, 1996, eff. Dec. 1, 1996; Apr. 11, 1997, eff. Dec. 1, 1997; Apr. 24, 1998, eff. Dec. 1, 1998; Apr. 26, 1999, eff. Dec. 1, 1999; Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000; Apr. 23, 2001, eff. Dec. 1, 2001; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002; Mar. 27, 2003, eff. Dec. 1, 2003; Apr. 25, 2005, eff. Dec. 1, 2005; Apr. 12, 2006, eff. Dec. 1, 2006; Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007; Apr. 23, 2008, eff. Dec. 1, 2008; Mar. 26, 2009, eff. Dec. 1, 2009; Apr. 28, 2010, eff. Dec. 1, 2010; Apr. 2013, eff. Dec. 1, 2013; Apr. 25, 2014, eff. Dec. 1, 2014; Apr. 29, 2015, eff. Dec. 1, 2015; Apr. 28, 2016, eff. Dec 1, 2016.

References to Equity Rules

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure supplant the Equity Rules since in general they cover the field now covered by the Equity Rules and the Conformity Act (former section 724 of this title).

This table shows the Equity Rules to which references are made in the notes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

• TITLE I. SCOPE OF RULES; FORM OF ACTION
• TITLE II. COMMENCING AN ACTION; SERVICE OF PROCESS, PLEADINGS, MOTIONS, AND ORDERS
• TITLE III. PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS
• TITLE IV. PARTIES
• TITLE V. DISCLOSURES AND DISCOVERY
• TITLE VI. TRIALS
• TITLE VII. JUDGMENT
• TITLE VIII. PROVISIONAL AND FINAL REMEDIES
• TITLE IX. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
• TITLE X. DISTRICT COURTS AND CLERKS: CONDUCTING BUSINESS; ISSUING ORDERS
• TITLE XI. GENERAL PROVISIONS
• XIII. SUPPLEMENTAL RULES FOR ADMIRALTY OR MARITIME CLAIMS AND ASSET FORFEITURE ACTIONS
• SUPPLEMENTAL RULES FOR SOCIAL SECURITY ACTIONS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

State Budget 2024-25

The Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Trade and Investment, the Honourable Cameron Dick MP, tabled the 2024-25 Queensland Budget in Parliament on Tuesday 11 June 2024.

Budget Budget Papers Service delivery statements State Budget State budget cycle 2024-25

• Budget At a Glance
• Budget Overview
• Cost of Living Action

Budget papers

• Budget Speech (Budget Paper 1)
• Budget Strategy and Outlook (Budget Paper 2)
• Capital Statement (Budget Paper 3)
• Budget Measures (Budget Paper 4)

Service Delivery Statements

Appropriation bills.

The Appropriation Bills are available on the  Queensland Legislation website.

Regional Action Plans

The Regional Actions Plans outline key Budget initiatives and projects announced by the Queensland Government for each region. Note: In a limited number of cases the expenditure for projects and initiatives, including estimated total infrastructure and capital works spending by region, may not match that presented in other Budget Papers due to different rounding approaches. In these instances, the more detailed expenditure presented in Budget Papers 3 and 4 should take precedence and be referenced.

• Brisbane and Redlands
• Central Queensland
• Darling Downs
• Far North Queensland
• Mackay-Whitsunday
• Moreton Bay
• Outback Queensland
• Sunshine Coast

Service Delivery Statements provide budgeted financial and non-financial information for the 2024-25 Budget. Each departmental portfolio and the Legislative Assembly of Queensland has a statement.

• Department of the Premier and Cabinet
• Queensland Treasury
• Legislative Assembly of Queensland
• Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
• Department of Child Safety, Seniors and Disability Services
• Department of Education
• Department of Employment, Small Business and Training
• Department of Energy and Climate
• Department of Environment, Science and Innovation
• Department of Housing, Local Government, Planning and Public Works
• Department of Justice and Attorney-General
• Queensland Corrective Services
• Queensland Fire Department
• Queensland Health
• Queensland Police Service and Office of the Inspector-General of Emergency Management
• Department of Regional Development, Manufacturing and Water
• Department of Resources
• Department of State Development and Infrastructure
• Department of Tourism and Sport
• Department of Transport and Main Roads
• Department of Treaty, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, Communities and the Arts
• Department of Youth Justice

Budget Statement

• Women’s Budget Statement

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

How to get a copy of a divorce decree or certificate

A divorce decree is a court order ending a marriage. A divorce certificate is a vital document proving a divorce occurred. Learn when you can use each and how to get copies.

Divorce decrees

A divorce decree establishes specific terms of the divorce. You will need a copy of it to get legal or government help that enforces decisions about:

• The division of a couple’s assets and debts
• Spousal alimony or maintenance
• Custody, visitation, and child support

How to get a copy of a divorce decree

Contact the clerk of the county or city where you got divorced. They will tell you how to order a copy, the cost, and what information you need to supply.

Divorce certificates

In addition to a court-issued divorce decree, many state vital records offices provide a divorce certificate. The divorce certificate gives both people’s names and the location and date of the divorce. It may be all you need to:

• Change your name

How to get a copy of a divorce certificate

Contact the state vital records office where the divorce took place to learn if that state issues divorce certificates. They will tell you the cost, what information you need to supply, and how to get a copy online, by mail, or in person.

LAST UPDATED: January 29, 2024

Have a question?

Ask a real person any government-related question for free. They will get you the answer or let you know where to find it.