American Democracy in Context. Joseph A. Pika
Читать онлайн книгу.
however, deals primarily with economic issues (the creation of a common market to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and labor among member countries), as opposed to defense and foreign affairs.
At the opposite extreme of a confederal system is a unitary system, which characterizes the vast majority of governments in the world today. In unitary systems, such as those of France or Japan, the central government has ultimate control over all areas of policy. The central government may delegate some of its power to regional or local governments, but unlike a federal system, a unitary system allows the central government to overrule any political decision made by local government. The central government is not, in other words, obligated to share power (as it is under a federal system); it can trump local action whenever it chooses to do so. (See Figure 3.1.)
Figure 3.1 Three Systems of Government
federal system A system in which power is formally divided between the national government and regional entities such as states.
confederal system A system of government in which power rests primarily with regional entities that have banded together to form a league of independent governments.
unitary system A system of government in which the national government has ultimate control over all areas of policy.
After having fought and won a revolution to gain independence from Britain and its perceived tyranny, embracing a unitary system in America did not have much appeal. Therefore, the United States created a federal system, becoming the first nation to do so. Although a federal system now exists in a number of other countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, and Mexico, countries with a federal system remain a distinct minority. Federal systems tend to be found in larger countries (with some notable exceptions, such as Belgium). Thus, while federal systems make up only 10 percent of the world’s countries, they encompass 38 percent of the world’s people and cover 49 percent of the world’s land area (see Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2 Federations of the World
Source: Shively, Power and Choice, 15th Edition.
In the United States, a division of power exists not only between the national government and the states but also between the state and local governments. This division varies from state to state, as does the number of governmental units within a particular state. Today, power in the United States is divided among more than 89,000 governmental units at the national, state, and local levels, resulting in a very complicated system of decision making.
Strengths and Weaknesses of a Federal System
The sharing of power between the national government and the states reflected the framers’ belief in limited government. They feared that concentrations of power would breed tyranny. Thus, through separation of powers, they divided power horizontally at the national level between the three coequal branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—and established a system of checks and balances. At the same time, they used federalism to divide power vertically between the national government and the states. The resulting division of power not only gives individual states autonomy to deal as they see fit with policy areas over which they have control (such as education) but also increases the number of opportunities for people to influence and control different units of government.
This dispersal of power is thought to be one of the great strengths of federalism. In addition to protecting against dangerous concentrations of power and allowing a degree of autonomy to the states, federalism gives individual states the opportunity to experiment with different types of policy responses to public problems. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once put it, “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel, social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”10 Thus, individual states have been able to experiment with everything from educational policy to the legalization of medical usage of marijuana (currently permitted in over half the states). Federalism has also allowed states to give greater protection than the national government to issues such as the environment (something President Trump wanted to roll back).
Yet, as critics have noted, federalism also has its weaknesses. For instance, although dispersal of power may give citizens more opportunity to influence the political process, it also provides more veto points that can be used to stifle action on important issues. Likewise, state autonomy can translate into inaction; states may be unresponsive to policy problems that fall under their purview. And while federalism may allow states to experiment with different types of policy responses, variation among states can lead to inconsistencies in the way citizens are treated in different states. At its worst, states’ rights can become a justification for policies that undermine social justice, such as racial segregation and Jim Crow laws (see Chapter 5).
The Constitutional Allocation of the Powers of Government
Ever since the founding of the United States, a debate has persisted about how to divide power between the national government and the states. The Articles of Confederation came down decidedly in favor of the states. Then the U.S. Constitution created a federal system, with the national government and the states sharing power. However, the language of the Constitution leaves the precise balance of power between the two ambiguous. Such ambiguity was a compromise between those delegates who wanted a very strong national government and those who supported states’ rights. Each side hoped their interpretation of this ambiguous language would prevail later on, but the result has been ongoing debate about the balance of power.
National Powers
When states entered into the Constitution, they specifically delegated certain powers to the new national government. Chief among these are those given to Congress. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution includes a laundry list of specific congressional powers known as the enumerated powers (see Chapter 2 and Table 3.1).
Table 3.1
In addition to these enumerated powers, the last clause of Article I, Section 8, known as the necessary and proper clause, gives Congress the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The powers exercised by Congress under this clause are called implied powers, since (unlike the enumerated powers) they are not listed specifically in the Constitution. The necessary and proper clause is sometimes also referred to as the elastic clause because it allows the powers of Congress to expand like an elastic band. Just how elastic this clause should be has long been the subject of intense debate.
Starting with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, several constitutional amendments have included an enabling clause, which gives Congress the power to enforce the provisions of the amendment through appropriate legislation. Enabling clauses, therefore, allow Congress’s power to expand. As with implied powers, however, determining what legislation is “appropriate” (and, thus, how much Congress’s power can expand) has been the focus of debate.
Article VI of the Constitution contains the so-called supremacy clause. This clause states that the U.S. Constitution, all “Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance