CHAPTER 3

THE FEDERAL SYSTEM

READINGS

#1 - 3.1 - 3.2

#2 - 3.3

#3 - 3.4

CHAPTER 3

READING GUIDE

CHAPTER 3 VOCABULARY

READING #1:

43-49

• 3.1 ROOTS OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM
• 3.2 FEDERALISM: DIVIDING POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

3.1 ROOTS OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM

ROOTS OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM

3.1 ROOTS OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM

CHOOSING A TYPE OF GOVERNMENT

• What are these?
• Monarchy
• Totalitarianism
• Oligarchy
• Democracy
• DEVISING A FEDERAL SYSTEM
• Federal System
• Creating a functional government from cities to Washington D.C.

• Where did our ideas come from?
• Enlightenment?
• Brits?
• How much power should our Central gov. Have?
• Federalists v. Anti-Federalists
• What did we learn from the Articles of Confederation?

*190 countries - 123 are Democracies TODAY!

DEVISING A FEDERAL SYSTEM

3.1 ROOTS OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM

• What does Federalism mean?
• States Derive power from People
• Federal Gov. Derives power from People
• Fed. Gov. is SUPREME (Article 6 Paragraph 2)
• Relate that to the British system (Unitary System)
• Relate to Articles of Confederation

3.2 FEDERALISM: DIVIDING POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

NATIONAL POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

3.2 FEDERALISM: DIVIDING POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

*NOTE IN YOUR CONSTITUTION

• ENUMERATED POWERS
• Article I, Section 8 - Power granted to Congress
• Coin Money, conduct foreign relations, provide a military, declare war
• IMPLIED POWERS
• Gov. uses its powers that are “necessary and proper” for the people.

STATE POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

3.2 FEDERALISM: DIVIDING POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

• 9th Amendment
• 10th Amendment
• “Reserved Powers”

CONCURRENT POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

3.2 FEDERALISM: DIVIDING POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

• Concurrent Powers
• Power to Tax
• Borrow Money
• Establish Courts
• Charter Banks
• Spend Money for general welfare

POWERS DENIED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

3.2 FEDERALISM: DIVIDING POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

YOU CANNOT

• Favor one state over another
• Commerce
• Duties/Tariffs
• Accepting gifts from foreign governments
• Cannot rule against your const. Rights
• No “Bills of Attainder”
• When a law is passed that declares an act illegal without Jury Trial
• No Ex Post Facto punishments

FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL RELATIONS

3.2 FEDERALISM: DIVIDING POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

• Interstate Relations
• Article IV - Full Faith and Credit Clause
• Privileges and Immunities Clause
• Extradition Clause
• LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
• Dillon’s Rule
• Counties
• Municipalities
• Towns
• Special Districts

READING #2:

49-55

3.3 THE EVOLUTION OF FEDERALISM

3.3 THE EVOLUTION OF FEDERALISM

Supreme Court/Legislature/Executive

FEDERALISM AND MARSHALL COURT

3.3 The Evolution of Federalism

• Defining National Power: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
• McCulloch v. Maryland
• SCENARIO: Maryland taxed national bank
• DECISION: States can’t tax National Bank
• Supremacy Clause
• REASONING: Bank is justified
• Implied Powers
• Necessary and Proper to run country in interests of the people.

FEDERALISM AND MARSHALL COURT

3.3 The Evolution of Federalism

• AFFIRMING NATIONAL POWER:
• Gibbons v. Ogden
• SCENARIO: Business control state to state commerce.
• DECISION: Business can’t control state to state commerce
• REASONING: Only Congress has this power to regulate state to state commerce
• Supremacy Clause

FEDERALISM AND MARSHALL COURT

3.3 The Evolution of Federalism

• LIMITING THE BILL OF RIGHTS:
• Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
• SCENARIO:
• DECISION: ...
• REASONING: ...

THE CIVIL WAR AND DUAL FEDERALISM

3.3 The Evolution of Federalism

• ROGER TANEY
• NULLIFICATION
• THE DRED SCOTT DECISION
• THE CIVIL WAR
• RECONSTRUCTION
• PROGRESSIVE AMENDMENTS

COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM AND GROWTH OF NATIONAL GOV.

3.3 The Evolution of Federalism

• 1920s
• Boom and Bust
• Laissez-Faire
• 1930s
• New Deal
• Court-Packing
• Cooperative Federalism

READING #3:

56-59

• 3.4 TOWARD REFORM: BALANCING NATIONAL AND STATE POWER

3.4 TOWARD REFORM: BALANCING NATION AND STATE POWER

THE INFLUENCE OF FEDERAL GRANTS

3.4 TOWARD REFORM: BALANCING NATIONAL AND STATE POWER

• TYPES OF FEDERAL GRANTS
1. Categorical Grants
• Money to states… if they follow
• 90% of Fed. grants
• Began with LBJ’s Great Society
2. Block Grants
• Money to states… loosely regulated
• This was Reagan’s “New Federalism”
3. “Earmarks” (Programmatic Requests)
• Federal $$$ designed for “special projects” within a state/district
• Big increase since 2015 (up 17.1%)

FEDERALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT

3.4 TOWARD REFORM: BALANCING NATIONAL AND STATE POWER

• The Rehnquist Court
• Followed Reagan’s New Federalism
• States Rights

• The Roberts Court
• Conservative
• But… bringing power back to federal gov.

United States v. Lopez (1995)

SCENARIO:

Alfonso Lopez, Jr., was a 12th-grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. In March of 1992, he carried a concealed .38 caliber revolver, along with five cartridges, into the school. The gun was not loaded. Lopez claimed that he was to deliver the weapon to another person, a service for which he would receive $44. He was confronted by school authorities—the school had received anonymous tips that Lopez was carrying the weapon—and admitted to having the weapon. The next day, he was charged with violating the federal Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990.

​

​

​

1. What do you think Mr. Lopez did wrong?
1. What’s your opinion of the law?
2. Good or bad law?
2. Which government body created the law?
3. Predict Congress’ reasoning for creating this law.
4. Federal Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990: Constitutional or No?

United States v. Lopez (1995)

WORDING:

Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990

“The presence of firearms within a school would be seen as dangerous, resulting in students' being scared and disturbed; this would, in turn, inhibit learning; and this, in turn, would lead to a weaker national economy since education is clearly a crucial element of the nation's financial health.”

​

​

​

• What “commerce” can congress regulate?
• What was Mr. Lopez’ stated intentions with the weapon?
• What wording in this law can the Supreme Court pick on?

*DECISION: Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce… not commerce within the state.

​

​

​

​

​

Presiding Chief Justice William Rehnquist

NOTE:

• Rehnquist nominated by Ronald Reagan.
• Reagan’s was conservative
• Power back to States?

“The Commerce Clause should be limited to its proper sphere. The current approach under the Commerce Clause requires court to defer to congressional judgement that a regulated activity has an effect upon interstate commerce, provided that there is any rational basis for judgement. This standard grants judicial power to the legislative branch and removes an important check on legislative power. Deference to the judgment of a coequal branch of government on a specific issue is only appropriate where the Constitution gives that branch the power to decide that issue. Here, the Constitution grants the Judicial Branch the power to decide whether Congress is acting within its enumerated powers, so no deference is due. Simply put, “The constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”

-Texas Kistoce Foundation, Amicus Brief filed in United States v. Lopez (1993)