Changes

In the United States the states "surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government," but retained "'a residuary and inviolable sovereignty.'"  ''Printz v. United States'', 521 U.S.98, 918-19 (quoting ''[[The Federalist]]'', No. 39, at 245, [[James Madison]]).  This dual sovereignty is "reflected throughout the Constitution's text."  ''Id.'' at 919.  The continued existence of state sovereignty is "implicit . . . in the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones."  ''Id.''

In the United States the states "surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government," but retained "'a residuary and inviolable sovereignty.'"  ''Printz v. United States'', 521 U.S.98, 918-19 (quoting ''[[The Federalist]]'', No. 39, at 245, [[James Madison]]).  This dual sovereignty is "reflected throughout the Constitution's text."  ''Id.'' at 919.  The continued existence of state sovereignty is "implicit . . . in the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones."  ''Id.''

When the national government was young, federalism stood for a stronger federal government.  After the federal government became very strong, however, federalism has stood for keeping the federal government out of matters traditionally within the domain of state government, such as education, family law, medical care, and local law enforcement.

Federalism is determining which powers and duties belong at the federal level and which belong at the state level.  Under the Articles of Confederation, the states had most powers, and the Constitution was drafted with the purpose of granting the federal government additional powers.  Under the Constitution, individual issues would be framed in terms of states' rights vs. the federal government role.  From 1800 until 1860, this debate was mostly viewed from the perspective of slavery vs. abolition of slavery.  Following the 1960s, the federalism debate has been viewed through a liberal vs. conservative prespective.

Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] was a proponent of (modern) federalism and curbing the overreaching of the federal government.  His leading decision was a 5-4 ruling in ''[[United States v. Lopez]]'', 514 U.S. 549 (1995), which invalidated on federalism grounds a federal law prohibiting the carrying of firearms within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.  The leading [[Supreme Court]] decisions in favor of federalism, nearly all written by Justice or Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], are:

Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] was a proponent of curbing the overreaching of the federal government.  His leading decision was a 5-4 ruling in ''[[United States v. Lopez]]'', 514 U.S. 549 (1995), which invalidated on federalism grounds a federal law prohibiting the carrying of firearms within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.  The leading [[Supreme Court]] decisions limiting the federal role, nearly all written by Justice or Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], are:

* ''[[United States v. Morrison]]'' (2000)

* ''[[United States v. Morrison]]'' (2000)