American Democracy in Context. Joseph A. Pika
Читать онлайн книгу.
the earlier ruling in Miln, he won—thanks, in no small part, to the Court’s 1937 “switch in time” that led to its more expansive cooperative federalist reading of the commerce clause. In a unanimous decision in Edwards v. California (1941), the Supreme Court concluded that the law imposed an unconstitutional burden upon interstate commerce. In so doing, the Court also explicitly rejected the language of Miln: “Whatever may have been the notion then prevailing, we do not think that it will now be seriously contended that, because a person is without employment and without funds, he constitutes a ‘moral pestilence.’ Poverty and immorality are not synonymous.”e
e Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941) at 177.
Questions to Consider
1 Suppose you had lost your farm and had traveled to California in the 1930s in search of a better life. What would you have done if confronted by the LAPD at the border, or if a friend or relative of yours had been charged under the California law for helping you come to the state?
2 What are the similarities and differences between California’s effort to secure its borders with Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon in the 1930s and today’s efforts to secure the southern border between the United States and Mexico?
3 Is there ever an instance in which a state might be justified in using its police powers to exclude someone from entering the state? If not, why? If so, when?
4 It is easy to dismiss Mayor of the City of New York v. Miln and the 1937 California law as relics of their time. But what about more recent anti-vagrancy statutes enacted by some cities to counter their burgeoning homeless populations? Are they problematic?
The New Federalism and Beyond
After the federal expansion of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society (1964–1969), Republican president Richard Nixon (1969–1974) sought to shift some of the balance of power back to the states. President Nixon coined the phrase New Federalism to describe this new approach.
The New Federalism
One of the ways New Federalism tried to restore power to the states was by implementing the use of block grants to states. Unlike specifically targeted categorical grants, where the federal government tells states precisely how and where to spend funds, block grants give states more flexibility. Block grants are meant to be spent on some general area, such as education or transportation, but states are relatively free to spend the money as they wish within that broad parameter.
President Nixon proposed consolidating 129 different categorical grants into six block grants. Congress stymied this initial proposal but did begin to create some new block grants. President Ronald Reagan (1981–1989) had more success. At his urging, Congress consolidated 77 categorical grants into nine block grants in 1981. The move may have given more flexibility to the states in terms of how to spend the money, but states ended up with less money to spend as a result of the consolidation. Another expansion of block grants took place in 1996 when Democrat Bill Clinton (1993–2001) held the White House and Republicans controlled Congress.46
In his 1996 State of the Union Address, President Clinton famously stated, “The era of big government is over.” He added, however, that “we cannot go back to the time when citizens were left to fend for themselves.” Instead, he envisioned a leaner federal government working in partnership with state and local governments, as well as with religious, charitable, and civic associations.47 Toward this end, Clinton and the Republican Congress limited the ability of the federal government to impose unfunded mandates on states, reformed the federal welfare system, and abolished federally imposed speed limits.
Appointments to the Supreme Court by Republican presidents starting with Nixon also had an effect on Supreme Court rulings dealing with federalism. In 1995, for the first time since 1936, the Court struck down a piece of legislation on the grounds that Congress had exceeded its commerce clause power. In U.S. v. Lopez, a 5–4 majority invalidated the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, in which Congress banned guns from “school zones”: the grounds of a public, parochial, or private elementary or secondary school and the area within 1,000 feet of those grounds. Congress used its commerce clause power to do this; specifically, it prohibited any firearm in these zones “that has moved in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.” The Court majority, however, concluded that regulating guns fell under states’ police powers. Several subsequent rulings have extended this shift back toward states’ rights—a trend that is likely to continue as a result of President Donald Trump’s appointments to the Supreme Court.
Federalism in the Twenty-First Century
Issues of federalism have been at the forefront of several important policy debates in the twenty-first century. Same-sex marriage proved to be the hot-button issue at the start of the century. Massachusetts became the first state to recognize same-sex marriage in 2004. Other states followed suit, prompting some states to pass constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage or civil unions. With public support for same-sex marriage steadily growing, the Supreme Court invalidated such amendments in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. By May 2018, a Gallup poll found 67 percent approval of same-sex marriage (roughly the same percentage that opposed it in 1996; see Figure 3.3).48
Figure 3.3 Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage 1996–2018
How has public opinion about same-sex marriage changed since the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell?
Source: “Two in Three Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage” Gallup, May 23, 2018, https://news.gallup.com/poll/234866/two-three-americans-support-sex-marriage.aspx
Health care reform quickly became another contentious issue. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), which President Obama signed into law in March 2010, required states to expand Medicaid coverage to all adults with an income up to 138% of the federal poverty level. States that failed to comply would lose all preexisting federal Medicaid funds. Prior to the law, the federal government only required states to provide Medicaid coverage to low-income children, pregnant women, parents of dependent children, people with disabilities, and qualifying individuals over 65.
block grants Funds from the national government to state and local governments that are earmarked for some general policy area, such as education, while giving the recipients flexibility to spend those funds within that policy area as they see fit.
The ACA initially provided full federal funding to support the expansion. Over time, however, federal funding would gradually decrease to 90% under the assumption that increased Medicaid funding would eventually pay for itself by reducing hospital costs for uncompensated care and by stimulating the economy through the influx of federal funds to the states (including new jobs associated with Medicaid expansion and tax revenue generated from health care providers).49 But several states sued the federal government over the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, arguing that compulsory Medicaid expansion violated states’ rights and foisted an unacceptable financial burden on them.50
In this instance, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the states, concluding that they must be allowed to opt out of the Medicaid expansion requirement without losing their preexisting Medicaid funding. Although the Court, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), did uphold the rest of the ACA—including its controversial “individual mandate” (requiring individuals, with a few exceptions, to purchase health insurance)—the Court’s holding on