Difference between revisions of "Federalism"
(US not the only federal system. Germany and Canada, for instance, also are federal) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Federalism is the system of co-sovereigns in the United States, as well as in other countries, with a national or federal government having power along with state governments over the same territory and citizenry. | + | '''Federalism''' is the system of co-sovereigns in the United States, as well as in other countries, with a national or federal government having power along with state governments over the same territory and citizenry. |
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 law enforcement. | 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 law enforcement. | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Since that ruling there have been many decisions by the Supreme Court and lower courts limiting federal power to interfere with state sovereignty in fields of traditional state control. For example, The Fifth Circuit held that "[w]here Congress aims to change the usual constitutional balance between the states and the federal government, it must make unmistakably clear its intention to do so in the statute’s language." ''Premiere Network Servs. v. SBC Comm.'', 440 F.3d 683, 690 n.8 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing ''Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police'', 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989) and ''Gonzales v. Oregon'', 546 U.S. 243 (2006), emphasis added). | Since that ruling there have been many decisions by the Supreme Court and lower courts limiting federal power to interfere with state sovereignty in fields of traditional state control. For example, The Fifth Circuit held that "[w]here Congress aims to change the usual constitutional balance between the states and the federal government, it must make unmistakably clear its intention to do so in the statute’s language." ''Premiere Network Servs. v. SBC Comm.'', 440 F.3d 683, 690 n.8 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing ''Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police'', 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989) and ''Gonzales v. Oregon'', 546 U.S. 243 (2006), emphasis added). | ||
| + | [[category:politics]] | ||
Revision as of 07:18, April 27, 2007
Federalism is the system of co-sovereigns in the United States, as well as in other countries, with a national or federal government having power along with state governments over the same territory and citizenry.
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 law enforcement.
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 Lopez v. United States, 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.
Since that ruling there have been many decisions by the Supreme Court and lower courts limiting federal power to interfere with state sovereignty in fields of traditional state control. For example, The Fifth Circuit held that "[w]here Congress aims to change the usual constitutional balance between the states and the federal government, it must make unmistakably clear its intention to do so in the statute’s language." Premiere Network Servs. v. SBC Comm., 440 F.3d 683, 690 n.8 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989) and Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), emphasis added).