Bagaimana Federalisme Menyelesaikan Negeri vs Hak Persekutuan

Bagaimana Federalisme Menyelesaikan Negeri vs Hak Persekutuan

Ketika 13 Amerika Syarikat mengisytiharkan kemerdekaan dari Inggeris pada tahun 1776, para pengasasnya berusaha untuk melepaskan diri dari kezaliman pemerintah pusat dari bawah ke bawah Britain.

Tetapi perlembagaan pertama yang dibuat oleh pengasasnya, Artikel Gabungan, memberikan hampir semua kuasa dalam badan perundangan negara dan hampir tidak ada dalam pemerintahan nasional. Hasilnya - kekacauan politik dan hutang yang melumpuhkan - hampir menenggelamkan negara yang masih muda sebelum meninggalkan pelabuhan.

Oleh itu para pengasas bertemu lagi di Philadelphia pada tahun 1787 dan menyusun Perlembagaan baru yang didasarkan pada pemisahan novel kuasa negara dan nasional yang dikenali sebagai federalisme. Walaupun perkataan itu sendiri tidak muncul di mana-mana Perlembagaan, federalisme menjadi prinsip panduan untuk melindungi orang Amerika daripada kezaliman ala Raja George III sambil memberi petunjuk terhadap negara-negara nakal.

BACA LEBIH LANJUT: Bagaimana Perlembagaan Amerika Syarikat Muncul

Kegagalan Artikel Gabungan

Artikel Gabungan ditulis dan disahkan semasa Perang Revolusi masih berlaku. Dokumen ini lebih kurang merupakan konstitusi penyatuan daripada perjanjian yang longgar antara 13 negara berdaulat yang bermaksud memasuki "persatuan persahabatan yang tegas." Tidak ada dalam Artikel Gabungan adalah cabang Eksekutif atau Kehakiman, dan kongres nasional hanya memiliki kekuatan untuk menyatakan perang dan menandatangani perjanjian, tetapi tidak ada wewenang untuk secara langsung mengenakan pajak.

Akibatnya, Amerika Syarikat yang baru merdeka dibebankan dalam hutang pada tahun 1786 dan tidak dapat membayar gaji tentera Revolusi yang sudah lama tertangguh. Ekonomi A.S. mengalami kemurungan yang mendalam dan rakyat yang berjuang kehilangan ladang dan kediaman mereka. Di Massachusetts, petani yang marah menyertai Pemberontakan Shays untuk merebut gedung pengadilan dan menyekat penyitaan, dan kongres tanpa gigi tidak berdaya untuk meletakkannya.

George Washington, sementara pensiun dari perkhidmatan pemerintah, meratapi John Jay, "Betapa kemenangan bagi para pendukung despotisme untuk mengetahui bahawa kita tidak mampu memerintah diri kita sendiri, dan bahawa sistem yang didirikan atas dasar kebebasan yang sama hanya ideal & salah!"

Alexander Hamilton menyeru Konvensyen Perlembagaan baru di Philadelphia pada tahun 1787 di mana Artikel Gabungan akhirnya dilemparkan untuk mendukung bentuk pemerintahan yang sama sekali baru.

BACA LEBIH LANJUT: Bapa Pengasas Takut akan Pengaruh Asing - Dan Merangka Perlindungan terhadapnya

Jalan Tengah Federalisme

Ketika Amerika Syarikat memutuskan hubungan dengan Britain, para pengasas tidak mahu ada hubungannya dengan bentuk pemerintahan Britain yang dikenali sebagai "kesatuan." Di bawah rejim kesatuan, semua kuasa berasal dari pemerintahan nasional berpusat (Parlimen) dan diserahkan kepada pemerintah tempatan. Itulah cara kerajaan beroperasi di UK.

Sebaliknya, para pengasas pada awalnya memilih bentuk pemerintahan yang berlawanan, sebuah gabungan. Dalam konfederasi, semua kuasa berasal dari peringkat tempatan di setiap negeri dan hanya diserahkan kepada pemerintah pusat yang lemah mengikut budi bicara negeri.

Semasa pengasas bertemu di Philadelphia, jelas bahawa sebuah gabungan tidak cukup untuk menyatukan negara muda. Negara-negara sedang merampas sempadan dan mengaut wang mereka sendiri. Massachusetts harus mengupah tenteranya sendiri untuk menjatuhkan Pemberontakan Shays.

Penyelesaiannya adalah dengan mencari jalan tengah, cetak biru pemerintahan di mana kuasa dibagi dan seimbang antara negara dan kepentingan nasional. Kompromi itu, yang dijalin dalam Perlembagaan dan Rang Undang-Undang Hak, dikenali sebagai federalisme.

Dua Jenis ‘Pemisahan Kuasa’

Perlembagaan dan Rang Undang-Undang Hak membuat dua jenis pemisahan kuasa, yang kedua dirancang untuk bertindak sebagai pemeriksa dan keseimbangan kritikal.

Yang pertama dan paling terkenal mengenai pemisahan kuasa adalah antara tiga cabang pemerintahan: Eksekutif, Perundangan dan Kehakiman. Sekiranya presiden bertindak bertentangan dengan kepentingan terbaik negara, dia boleh disekat oleh Kongres. Sekiranya Kongres meluluskan undang-undang yang tidak adil, presiden boleh memvetonya. Dan jika ada undang-undang atau institusi awam yang melanggar hak perlembagaan rakyat, Mahkamah Agung dapat memperbaikinya.

BACA LEBIH LANJUT: Berapa Banyak Presiden A.S. yang Menghadapi Impeachment?

Tetapi jenis kedua pemisahan kuasa adalah sama pentingnya, pemberian kuasa terpisah kepada kerajaan persekutuan dan negeri. Di bawah Perlembagaan, badan perundangan negara mempertahankan banyak kedaulatan mereka untuk meluluskan undang-undang yang mereka anggap sesuai, tetapi pemerintah persekutuan juga mempunyai kuasa untuk campur tangan ketika sesuai dengan kepentingan nasional. Dan di bawah "klausa supremasi" yang terdapat dalam Artikel VI, undang-undang persekutuan dan undang-undang menggantikan undang-undang negeri.

Federalisme, atau pemisahan kuasa antara kerajaan negeri dan persekutuan, sama sekali baru ketika para pengasas memasukkannya ke dalam Perlembagaan. Dan walaupun berfungsi sebagai pemeriksaan penting, ini juga menjadi sumber perselisihan antara kedua-dua peringkat pemerintahan. Pada akhir menjelang Perang Saudara, negara-negara Selatan berpisah dari Kesatuan sebahagiannya kerana pemerintah persekutuan secara tidak konstitusional melanggar "institusi domestik" perbudakan mereka.

Bagaimana Federalisme Berfungsi dalam Perlembagaan

MENONTON: Cabang Perundangan

Menurut James Madison, seorang federalis yang komited, Perlembagaan mempertahankan kedaulatan negara dengan menghitung sangat sedikit kuasa tersurat kepada pemerintah persekutuan, sementara "[t] selang yang akan tetap berada dalam pemerintahan Negara adalah banyak dan tidak terbatas."

Artikel I Bahagian 8 berisi daftar semua kekuatan "dihitung" yang secara eksklusif diberikan kepada pemerintah persekutuan. Itu termasuk kekuatan untuk menyatakan perang, mempertahankan angkatan bersenjata, mengatur perdagangan, duit syiling dan menubuhkan Pejabat Pos.

Tetapi Seksyen 8 yang sama juga termasuk apa yang disebut "Klausa Elastik" yang memberi kuasa kepada Kongres untuk menulis dan meluluskan undang-undang yang "perlu dan wajar" untuk melaksanakan kuasanya. Kuasa-kuasa ini dikenal secara kolektif sebagai "kekuatan tersirat" dan telah digunakan oleh Kongres untuk membuat bank nasional, mengumpulkan pajak pendapatan persekutuan, untuk membuat rancangan, meluluskan undang-undang kawalan senjata api dan untuk menetapkan gaji minimum persekutuan, antara lain.

Selain daripada itu, Perlembagaan memberikan hampir semua kuasa dan kuasa lain kepada setiap negara, seperti yang dikatakan oleh Madison. Walaupun Perlembagaan tidak secara jelas menyenaraikan kuasa yang dikekalkan oleh negara-negara, para pengasasnya memasukkan semua yang penting dalam Pindaan ke-10, yang disahkan pada tahun 1791:

"Kuasa-kuasa yang tidak didelegasikan ke Amerika Serikat oleh Konstitusi, atau dilarang olehnya kepada Negara-negara, masing-masing dimiliki oleh Negara-negara, atau kepada rakyat."

Kuasa-kuasa yang disebut "terpelihara" itu merangkumi semua kewenangan dan fungsi pemerintah daerah dan negara bagian, kepolisian, pendidikan, pengaturan perdagangan dalam sebuah negeri, pemilihan umum dan banyak lagi.

Di Amerika Syarikat, federalisme telah membuktikan percubaan yang berjaya dalam pemerintahan bersama sejak 1787 dan menyediakan model untuk sistem federalisme yang serupa di Australia, Kanada, India, Jerman dan beberapa negara lain.


Bagaimana Federalism Settled States vs Federal Rights - SEJARAH

Negeri' hak, dalam sejarah AS, doktrin berdasarkan Pindaan Kesepuluh terhadap Perlembagaan, yang menyatakan, "Kuasa-kuasa yang tidak didelegasikan ke Amerika Syarikat oleh Perlembagaan, atau dilarang olehnya kepada Negara-negara, adalah milik Negara masing-masing, atau kepada rakyat. " Istilah ini merangkumi kedua-dua doktrin kedaulatan negara mutlak yang disokong oleh John C. Calhoun dan yang disebut dengan tafsiran konstruktivis yang ketat terhadap Perlembagaan AS, yang memberi hak kepada pemerintah negeri semua kuasa yang tidak diberikan secara khusus oleh dokumen itu kepada persekutuan. kerajaan. Kontroversi hak negara mungkin wujud dalam struktur persekutuan kerajaan Amerika Syarikat.

PADA HARI AWAL KESATUAN

Segera setelah penerapan Perlembagaan, timbul kontroversi mengenai bagaimana menafsirkan kuasa yang dihitung yang diberikan oleh kerajaan pusat. Alexander Hamilton dan parti Federalis memilih penafsiran yang luas, yang bermaksud pemerintah pusat yang kuat memperoleh kewenangannya daripada kuasa tersirat dan tersurat yang terkandung dalam Perlembagaan. Thomas Jefferson dan pengikutnya, "konstruksionis yang tegas," menegaskan bahawa semua kuasa yang tidak diberikan secara khusus kepada kerajaan persekutuan akan diberikan kepada negeri-negeri. Resolusi Kentucky dan Virginia, yang ditulis oleh Jefferson dan James Madison, merupakan rumusan pertama mengenai doktrin hak-hak negara. Manifestasi penting kedua hak negara berlaku di New England di kalangan Federalis yang menentang, cukup aneh, kepada Jefferson. Partinya, ketika berkuasa, membawa (1803) Pembelian Louisiana, meluluskan Undang-Undang Embargo tahun 1807 dan langkah-langkah bukan pergaulan lain, dan kemudian mengisytiharkan perang terhadap Britain. Semua tindakan ini mendapat tentangan di New England, dan Perang tahun 1812 akhirnya membawa kepada pemanggilan Konvensyen Hartford 1814–15, di mana New Englanders secara rasmi menyatakan permusuhan mereka terhadap pemerintah persekutuan.

Perjuangan terhadap konstitusional Bank of Amerika Syarikat menjadikan negara-negara pusat - Pennsylvania, Maryland, dan Ohio khususnya - pembela hak-hak negeri seterusnya. Perkara-perkara yang dipermasalahkan di sini diselesaikan di McCulloch vs Maryland dengan keputusan Mahkamah Agung A.S., yang dikuasai oleh John Marshall, yang tafsirannya yang luas terhadap Perlembagaan meletakkan asas pemerintahan pusat yang kuat. Doktrin itu dihidupkan kembali dalam konflik antara pemerintah persekutuan dan Georgia yang mempunyai bidang kuasa atas suku-suku Asli Amerika dalam batas-batas Georgia, dan Georgia untuk sementara waktu menentang pemerintahan persekutuan. Lebih parah lagi adalah keadaan yang berlaku di Carolina Selatan bertentangan dengan tindakan tarif tahun 1828 dan 1832, ketika, di bawah kepemimpinan John C. Calhoun, Carolina Selatan meluluskan peraturan pembatalannya. Doktrin Calhoun mengenai kedaulatan negara mutlak adalah teori hak negara yang paling ekstrem.

JUSTIFIKASI UNTUK SEKSI

Walaupun kekuatan proslavery biasanya diidentifikasi dengan posisi hak negara yang kuat, badan perundangan Wisconsin mengadopsi (1859) resolusi yang mempertahankan kedaulatan negara setelah Mahkamah Agung menjatuhkan mahkamah Wisconsin dan menjatuhkan sabitan seorang editor pemansuhan kerana melanggar undang-undang budak buronan. Pada akhirnya negara-negara proslavery menggunakan doktrin hak negara untuk membenarkan pemisahan mereka. Sebelas negeri Selatan berpisah pada tahun 1860–61 dan membentuk Gabungan di mana, dengan pantas, doktrin hak-hak negara ditegakkan oleh gabenor seperti Joseph E. Brown dan Zebulon B. Vance. Ini tidak diragukan lagi menyumbang kepada kekalahan Konfederasi dalam Perang Saudara, seperti halnya peluasan beberapa Jajahan Tiga Belas untuk bertindak dalam kemerdekaan sepenuhnya Kongres Kontinental yang telah menghambat Revolusi Amerika.
(Dari "Hak Negara." Ensiklopedia Elektronik Columbia, Edisi ke-6, Sep2013, di Pusat Sumber Sejarah, disediakan oleh DISCUS.)

Sumber Web Tambahan

Hak-hak Negara: Seruan Pengasingan (Halaman Perang Saudara)
Biografi John C. Calhoun (Halaman "Kebebasan, Sejarah AS" PBS)
Kenyataan John C. Calhoun mengenai Pembatalan (Sumber utama) (PBS "halaman Andrew Jackson: Baik, Jahat dan Presiden")


Federalisme dan Kekuasaan Negara Berterusan Berdampingan

Walaupun terdapat pembatasan kuasa negara di bawah federalisme melalui pembentukan tinjauan kehakiman Mahkamah Agung, kekuatan perdagangan yang luas dari Kongres, dan penerapan Rang Undang-Undang Hak dan Pindaan Keempat Belas ke negara-negara, negara-negara tersebut mempertahankan kedaulatan perlembagaan dan politik pada akhir abad kedua puluh . Walaupun ketuanan pemerintah persekutuan mapan, negeri-negeri masih bebas untuk mengatur banyak urusan politik, ekonomi, dan sosial mereka sendiri di daerah-daerah di mana Kongres tidak bertindak untuk mewujudkan konsistensi di peringkat nasional. Keputusan Mahkamah Agung terus membatasi atau menyokong kuasa negara bergantung kepada isu tertentu yang dihadapi dan tafsiran federalisme terus berubah mengikut masa.


Aktiviti 1. Menyempurnakan Kesatuan: Dari Artikel Gabungan hingga Perlembagaan A.S.

Mintalah pelajar membaca gambaran ringkas mengenai sejarah Amerika di antara Artikel Gabungan (disusun pada tahun 1776 dan diluluskan pada tahun 1781) dan Perlembagaan (yang digubal pada tahun 1787 dan disahkan pada tahun 1788), yang menggantikan Artikel asal dengan pemerintahan pusat yang lebih kuat setelah banyak perbahasan. Bergantung pada tahap bacaan pelajar, dokumen berikut mungkin berfungsi sebagai gambaran keseluruhan yang baik:

  • "Rekod Pengundian Konvensyen Perlembagaan" (Klik "Baca Lagi"), tersedia dari Arkib Negara.
  • "Untuk Membentuk Kesatuan yang Lebih Sempurna" (terutamanya bahagian "Mengenal pasti Kecacatan dalam Gabungan" dan "Membuat Perlembagaan") yang terdapat di Perpustakaan Kongres.

Seterusnya, pelajar harus membaca dan membandingkan Artikel Gabungan (rancangan pertama untuk pemerintahan Amerika) dengan Perlembagaan A.S. (rancangan terakhir untuk pemerintahan Amerika). Cetak Artikel Gabungan dan Perlembagaan A.S. yang asli (lihat versi mesra cetak). Bahagikan kelas menjadi sebilangan kecil kumpulan kecil 3-4 pelajar. Separuh kumpulan harus mendapatkan salinan Artikel Gabungan, dan separuh lagi harus mendapatkan salinan Perlembagaan. Mereka harus membahagikan halaman di antara mereka supaya setiap pelajar membaca artikel yang berbeza. Setiap artikel harus diringkaskan dalam satu ayat dan disusun menjadi ringkasan kumpulan. Kemudian, setiap kumpulan "Artikel Gabungan" harus bergabung dengan kumpulan "Perlembagaan". Setiap kumpulan gabungan kini harus membincangkan persoalan di lembaran kerja Mengapa Perlembagaan ?, yang disediakan dalam format pdf, menggunakan ringkasan artikel mereka dan dokumen asal untuk rujukan. Walaupun kumpulan harus membincangkan jawapan bersama, setiap pelajar harus melengkapkan lembaran kerja secara individu.

Untuk lebih banyak latar belakang idea dan dokumen yang membuka jalan bagi Perlembagaan, lihat pelajaran EDSITEment Jefferson vs. Franklin: Philosophers Revolusioner.


Kuasa yang Dikongsi oleh Kerajaan Negara dan Negeri

Kuasa bersama, atau "serentak" merangkumi:

  • Menubuhkan mahkamah melalui sistem mahkamah ganda negara
  • Membuat dan memungut cukai
  • Membina lebuh raya
  • Meminjam wang
  • Membuat dan menguatkuasakan undang-undang
  • Menyewa bank dan syarikat
  • Membelanjakan wang untuk kesejahteraan umum
  • Mengambil (mengutuk) harta persendirian dengan hanya pampasan

Perjuangan Antara Kekuasaan Nasional dan Kekuasaan Negara

Sebagai setiausaha perbendaharaan George Washington dari tahun 1789 hingga 1795, Alexander Hamilton memperjuangkan usaha perundangan untuk mewujudkan bank yang disewa secara terbuka. Bagi Hamilton, penubuhan Bank Amerika Syarikat sepenuhnya berada di bawah kekuasaan Kongres, dan dia berharap bank itu dapat mendorong pembangunan ekonomi, mencetak dan mengedarkan uang kertas, dan memberikan pinjaman kepada pemerintah. Walaupun Thomas Jefferson, Setiausaha negara Washington, dengan tegas menentang rancangan Hamilton atas dasar perlembagaan bahawa pemerintah nasional tidak mempunyai kewenangan untuk membuat instrumen tersebut, Hamilton berjaya meyakinkan presiden yang enggan menandatangani undang-undang tersebut. [1]

Semasa piagam bank tamat pada tahun 1811, Jeffersonian Demokratik-Republikan berlaku dalam menyekat pembaharuannya. Namun, kesulitan fiskal yang menimpa pemerintah selama tahun 2004 Perang tahun 1812, ditambah dengan kerapuhan sistem kewangan negara, yakin Kongres dan presiden James ketika itu Madison untuk mencipta Bank Kedua Amerika Syarikat pada tahun 1816. Banyak negeri menolak Bank Kedua, dengan alasan bahawa pemerintah negara melanggar bidang kuasa perlembagaan negeri.

Pertarungan politik antara Maryland dan pemerintah nasional muncul ketika James McCulloch, ejen cawangan Bank Kedua di Baltimore, menolak untuk membayar cukai yang telah dikenakan oleh Maryland ke semua bank yang disewa di luar negara. Kebuntuan itu menimbulkan dua persoalan perlembagaan: Apakah Kongres mempunyai kuasa untuk menyewa bank nasional? Adakah negeri dibenarkan untuk memaksakan harta persekutuan? Dalam McCulloch lwn Maryland, Ketua Hakim John Marshall berpendapat bahawa Kongres dapat mewujudkan bank nasional walaupun Perlembagaan tidak membenarkannya secara tegas. [2]

Di bawah klausa yang perlu dan betul dari Perkara I, Seksyen 8, Mahkamah Agung menegaskan bahawa Kongres dapat menetapkan & # 8220semua cara yang sesuai & # 8221 untuk memenuhi & # 8220penghujung yang sah & # 8221 Perlembagaan. Dengan kata lain, bank adalah instrumen yang tepat yang memungkinkan pemerintah nasional untuk melaksanakan beberapa kekuatannya, seperti mengatur perdagangan antar negara, mengumpulkan pajak, dan meminjam uang.

Gambar 1. Ketua Hakim John Marshall, yang ditunjukkan di sini dalam potret oleh Henry Inman, terkenal dengan prinsip kajian kehakiman yang ditubuhkan di Marbury lwn Madison (1803), yang memperkuat pengaruh dan kebebasan cabang kehakiman pemerintah AS .

Keputusan ini menetapkan doktrin kekuatan tersirat, memberikan Kongres sumber kuasa budi bicara yang besar untuk mencapai tanggungjawab perlembagaannya. Mahkamah Agung juga berpihak kepada kerajaan persekutuan mengenai isu sama ada negeri boleh mengenakan cukai harta persekutuan. Di bawah klausa ketuanan Perkara VI, undang-undang negara yang sah mengalahkan undang-undang negara yang bertentangan. Seperti yang diperhatikan oleh pengadilan, & # 8220 pemerintah Kesatuan, walaupun terbatas dalam kuasanya, adalah yang tertinggi dalam bidang tindakannya dan undang-undangnya, ketika dibuat sesuai dengan perlembagaan, membentuk undang-undang tertinggi negara. & # 8221 Maryland's tindakan melanggar ketuanan nasional kerana & # 8220 kuasa untuk cukai adalah kuasa untuk memusnahkan. & # 8221 Keputusan kedua ini menetapkan prinsip ketuanan nasional, yang melarang negara-negara dari campur tangan dalam kegiatan sah pemerintah negara.

Mendefinisikan ruang lingkup kuasa nasional adalah subjek keputusan Mahkamah Agung yang lain pada tahun 1824. Di Gibbons lwn Ogden, mahkamah harus menafsirkan klausa perdagangan Perkara I, Bahagian 8 secara khusus, ia harus menentukan apakah pemerintah pusat memiliki satu-satunya kewenangan untuk mengatur pelesenan kapal uap yang beroperasi antara New York dan New Jersey. [3]

Aaron Ogden, yang telah memperoleh lesen eksklusif dari New York State untuk mengendalikan kapal feri antara New York City dan New Jersey, menuntut Thomas Gibbons, yang mengoperasikan feri di laluan yang sama di bawah lesen pelayaran yang dikeluarkan oleh kerajaan persekutuan. Gibbons kalah di mahkamah negeri New York dan membuat rayuan. Ketua Hakim Negara Marshall menyampaikan keputusan dua bahagian yang memihak kepada Gibbons yang memperkuatkan kuasa pemerintah negara. Pertama, perdagangan antara negeri ditafsirkan secara luas bermaksud & # 8220 hubungan komersial & # 8221 antara negeri-negeri, sehingga membolehkan Kongres mengatur navigasi. Kedua, kerana persekutuan Akta Perlesenan tahun 1793, yang mengatur perdagangan pesisir, adalah pelaksanaan perlembagaan wewenang Kongres berdasarkan klausa perdagangan, undang-undang persekutuan menolak undang-undang monopoli lesen Negeri New York yang telah memberi Ogden lesen operasi kapal uap eksklusif. Seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh Marshall, & # 8220 tindakan New York mesti mematuhi undang-undang Kongres. & # 8221 [4]

Berbagai negeri menentang nasionalisasi kekuasaan yang berlaku sejak akhir 1700-an. Semasa Presiden John Adams menandatangani Akta Hasutan pada tahun 1798, yang menjadikannya suatu kejahatan untuk berbicara secara terbuka terhadap pemerintah, badan perundangan Kentucky dan Virginia meluluskan resolusi yang menyatakan tindakan tersebut tidak sah dengan alasan bahawa mereka memiliki budi bicara untuk mengikuti undang-undang nasional. Akibatnya, ketetapan ini mengemukakan alasan hukum yang mendasari doktrin pembatalan- bahawa negara-negara memiliki hak untuk menolak undang-undang nasional yang mereka anggap tidak berperlembagaan. [5]

Krisis pembatalan muncul pada tahun 1830an atas tindakan tarif Presiden Andrew Jackson pada tahun 1828 dan 1832. Diketuai oleh John Calhoun, Naib Presiden Presiden Jackson, nullifiers berpendapat bahawa tarif tinggi terhadap barang import menguntungkan kepentingan pembuatan utara sambil merugikan ekonomi di Selatan. Carolina Selatan lulus sebuah Ordinan Pembatalan mengisytiharkan kedua-dua tarif tersebut tidak sah dan diancam untuk meninggalkan Kesatuan. Kerajaan persekutuan bertindak balas dengan menetapkan Paksa Bil pada tahun 1833, memberi kuasa kepada Presiden Jackson untuk menggunakan kekuatan tentera terhadap negeri-negeri yang mencabar undang-undang tarif persekutuan. Prospek tindakan ketenteraan ditambah dengan jalan keluar Kompromi Tarif Tarif tahun 1833 (yang menurunkan tarif dari masa ke masa) menyebabkan Carolina Selatan mundur, mengakhiri krisis pembatalan.

Pertunjukan terakhir antara pihak berkuasa nasional dan negara berlaku pada tahun Perang saudara. Sebelum konflik, di Dred Scott lwn Sandford, Mahkamah Agung memutuskan bahwa pemerintah nasional tidak memiliki kewenangan untuk melarang perbudakan di wilayah-wilayah tersebut. [6]

Tetapi pemilihan Presiden Abraham Lincoln pada tahun 1860 menyebabkan sebelas negeri selatan berpisah dari Amerika Syarikat kerana mereka percaya presiden baru akan mencabar institusi perbudakan. Apa yang pada awalnya merupakan konflik untuk memelihara Kesatuan menjadi konflik untuk mengakhiri perbudakan ketika Lincoln mengeluarkan Proklamasi Pembebasan pada tahun 1863, membebaskan semua hamba di negara-negara yang memberontak. Kekalahan Korea Selatan memberi kesan besar terhadap keseimbangan kuasa antara negeri-negeri dan pemerintah negara dalam dua cara penting. Pertama, kemenangan Union menghentikan hak negara untuk melepaskan diri dan mencabar undang-undang negara yang sah. Kedua, Kongres mengenakan beberapa syarat untuk memasukkan semula bekas negara Gabungan ke dalam Kesatuan di antaranya ialah pengesahan keempat belas dan Pindaan Kelima Belass. Ringkasnya, setelah Perang Saudara keseimbangan kekuasaan beralih ke pemerintah nasional, sebuah gerakan yang telah dimulai beberapa dekad sebelumnya dengan McCulloch lwn Maryland (1819) dan Gibbons lwn Odgen (1824).

Periode antara tahun 1819 dan 1860-an menunjukkan bahawa pemerintah nasional berusaha untuk menetapkan peranannya dalam rancangan persekutuan yang baru dibuat, yang pada gilirannya sering mendorong negara-negara untuk menentang ketika mereka berusaha untuk melindungi kepentingan mereka. Dengan pengecualian Perang Saudara, Mahkamah Agung menyelesaikan perebutan kekuasaan antara negeri dan pemerintah nasional. Dari perspektif sejarah, prinsip ketuanan nasional yang diperkenalkan dalam tempoh ini tidak mempersempit ruang lingkup kuasa perlembagaan negara sehingga menyekat pencerobohan mereka terhadap kuasa nasional. [7]


Artikel I, Sek. 8: Federalisme dan Skop Keseluruhan Kuasa Persekutuan

Dalam praktiknya, federalisme semakin merosot sejak penubuhannya, dan hubungan federal-negara selalu dipertikaikan. Meskipun demikian, federalisme mengalami empat fasa yang berbeza selama empat era yang berbeza dalam sejarah perlembagaan kita: pasca-Penubuhan, pasca-Perang Saudara, pasca-Perjanjian Baru, dan dari Mahkamah Rehnquist hingga hari ini.

Federalisme Kuasa Terhitung

Pada tahun 1787, Perlembagaan menggantikan Artikel Gabungan & mdash yang pada dasarnya merupakan perjanjian di antara negara berdaulat & mdash dengan perlembagaan baru yang disahkan oleh rakyat sendiri dalam konvensyen negara dan bukannya oleh badan perundangan negara. Pengasas memberikan kuasa nasional yang tidak dimiliki oleh Artikel kepada pemerintah negara dan memastikan pihaknya dapat bertindak secara langsung bagi pihak warganegara tanpa melalui pemerintahan negara. Tetapi para Pengasas juga berpendapat penting untuk mengekalkan kekuasaan negara-negara atas warganegara mereka sendiri.

Para Pengasas mencapai keseimbangan ini dengan memberikan pemerintahan nasional yang baru hanya kuasa dan jumlah yang terbatas dan menyerahkan peraturan perdagangan intrastate ke negeri-negeri. Kuasa perundangan negara hampir secara eksklusif dibatasi oleh konstitusi mereka sendiri.

Oleh itu, Federalisme semasa Pengasas dapat digambarkan sebagai & ldquoEnumerated Powers Federalism. & Rdquo Kerajaan nasional disifatkan sebagai salah satu kuasa terhad dan dihitung. Kekuasaan negeri adalah sederhana semua yang tinggal selepas penghitungan itu. Ini dinyatakan dalam kata-kata pertama Artikel I, yang membentuk Kongres: & ldquoSemua kuasa perundangan di sini diberikan akan diberikan hak dalam Kongres Amerika Syarikat. & rdquo Pindaan Kesepuluh menguatkan prinsip ini: & ldquoKuasa yang tidak didelegasikan ke Amerika Syarikat oleh Perlembagaan, atau dilarang olehnya ke negeri-negeri, adalah milik masing-masing, atau kepada rakyat . & rdquo Oleh itu, kuasa Negara dilindungi bukan dengan melindungi kuasa negara secara afirmatif, tetapi dengan membatasi kemampuan kerajaan persekutuan untuk bertindak sejak awal.

Federalisme Hak Asasi

Federalisme berubah selepas Perang Saudara. Partai Republik dalam Kongres Tiga Puluh Kelapan memberlakukan Pindaan Ketiga Belas, menghilangkan kekuatan negara untuk menegakkan perbudakan di dalam sempadan mereka. Tetapi negara-negara Selatan segera menggunakan seluruh kekuatan polis mereka yang lain untuk membuat Kod Hitam untuk menindas budak-budak yang baru dibebaskan. Tujuan mereka adalah untuk sedekat mungkin untuk memulihkan perbudakan dalam segala hal.

Menanggapi hal ini, Republik dalam Kongres Tiga Puluh Kesembilan menggunakan kuasa penguatkuasaan Pindaan Ketiga Belas mereka untuk menggubal Undang-Undang Hak Sivil 1866. Walaupun mereka menolak hak veto Presiden Johnson oleh golongan majoriti di kedua-dua rumah itu, beberapa di Kongres melihat perlunya untuk menulis perlindungan ini ke dalam Perlembagaan agar mahkamah tidak mempersoalkan kuasa Kongres & rsquos untuk menggubal Akta Hak Sivil.

Oleh itu, Republik membuat Pindaan Keempat Belas. Bahagian 1 melarang negara melanggar hak asasi warganegara mereka sendiri, meletakkan batasan persekutuan baru pada ketiga cabang pemerintah negeri. Bahagian 5 memberikan kuasa kepada Kongres untuk menegakkan batasan tersebut. Dengan berlakunya Pindaan ke-14, kerajaan persekutuan sekarang dapat mencegah negeri-negeri dari melanggar hak istimewa dan kekebalan warganegara mereka yang merampas nyawa, kebebasan, atau harta benda tanpa proses sewajarnya dan menafikan siapa pun perlindungan yang setara. Setelah berjalan lancar, peruntukan serupa diberlakukan untuk mencegah negara-negara menolak hak rakyat untuk memilih berdasarkan kaum mereka. Pindaan Pembinaan Semula, yang disatukan, dengan demikian membawa kepada apa yang boleh kita panggil & ldquoFederasi Hak Asasi. & Rdquo

Tidak lama setelah diberlakukannya, Mahkamah Agung secara sistematik menganugerahkan Federalisme Hak Asasi dari Perubahan Pembangunan Semula melalui kes seperti Kes Rumah Sembelih (1873), A.S. Cruikshank (1875), Kes Hak Sivil (1883), Plessy lwn Ferguson (1896), dan Giles lwn Harris (1903). Akibatnya, kuasa yang diberikan kepada pemerintah persekutuan tidak lagi berfungsi hingga Mahkamah dan Kongres mengambilnya kembali pada awal abad ke-20 untuk melindungi kebebasan ekonomi dalam kes seperti Lochner lwn New York (1905) dan Buchanan lwn Warley (1917). Akhirnya, bermula pada tahun 1930-an hingga hari ini, Mahkamah sebagian besar menarik diri dari kawasan ini untuk melindungi hak-hak & rdquo yang disebut & ldquofundamental dan hak-hak sivil kelas & ldquosuspect & rdquo seperti kaum minoriti.

Dengan Perjanjian Baru, Mahkamah memperluas kuasa peraturan persekutuan. Mengandalkan terutamanya pada Klausa Perdagangan dan Klausa Yang Perlu dan Benar untuk memperluas jangkauan Kongres & rsquos, Mahkamah secara efektif membawa kepada penghapusan Era Pengasas Federasi Kuasa Tercatat. Mahkamah menafsirkan Artikel I untuk memberikan kekuatan kepada Kongres untuk mengatur kegiatan ekonomi yang sepenuhnya mempengaruhi perdagangan interstate. Oleh kerana ruang lingkup dan kepentingan ekonomi nasional jauh melampaui visi perdagangan antara negara yang dimiliki oleh Pengasas, kekuatan untuk mengatur apa sahaja yang mempengaruhi perdagangan antar negara adalah kekuatan untuk mengatur hampir semua hal. Akibatnya, pemerintah persekutuan sekarang dapat mengatur di daerah-daerah yang pernah diperintah secara eksklusif oleh negeri-negeri. Bahkan boleh mengatur negeri sendiri. Oleh itu, apa yang berlaku di negeri-negeri berikutan Federalisme New Deal?

Federalisme Kedaulatan Negara

Masuk ke Mahkamah Rehnquist. Setelah William Rehnquist menjadi Ketua Hakim pada tahun 1986, Mahkamah mula mengembangkan apa yang kemudian dikenali sebagai & ldquoNew Federalisme, & rdquo tetapi yang dalam kisah ini boleh disebut & ldquoStat Sovereignty Federalism. & Rdquo

Pertama kali kes Mahkamah & rsquos disebut kes Pindaan Kesepuluh dari New York lwn Amerika Syarikat (1992), Gregory lwn Ashcroft (1991), dan Printz lwn Amerika Syarikat (1997). Dalam setiap kes ini, Mahkamah berusaha untuk mewujudkan zona otonomi negara yang tidak dapat diserang oleh kerajaan pusat. Oleh itu, negara dilindungi dari peraturan persekutuan dengan cara yang tidak dilakukan oleh pihak swasta. Kemudian muncul kes-kes Pindaan Kesebelas dari Seminole Tribe of Florida lwn Florida (1996) dan Alden lwn Maine (1999), mengimunisasi negeri dari beberapa tuntutan mahkamah di mahkamah persekutuan untuk mengekalkan status kedaulatan mereka.

Mahkamah Rehnquist kemudiannya memulakan tentatif untuk menghidupkan Federalisme Kuasa Terkira dalam kes seperti Amerika Syarikat lwn Lopez (1995) dan Amerika Syarikat lwn Morrison (2000). Mendorong menentang Federalisme Kesepakatan Baru, Mahkamah terus melesenkan peraturan persekutuan yang sepenuhnya mengganggu ekonomi aktiviti yang mempunyai kesan besar terhadap perdagangan antara negeri sambil menarik garis pada peraturan bukan ekonomi aktiviti intrastate.

Mahkamah Roberts kini menggunakan mantel. Seperti pendahulunya, ia terus (1) meminta kedaulatan negara untuk memelihara zon otonomi negara, dan (2) membangun versi moden federalisme kuasa yang dihitung dengan menafsirkan federalisme New Deal sebagai & ldquohigh tanda air & rdquo kuasa persekutuan sehingga kuasa persekutuan tidak dapat dikembangkan lebih jauh tanpa prinsip yang membatasi. Strategi pertama meletakkan had luaran pada kuasa Kongres & rsquos, menandakan di mana kuasa Kongres & rsquos berakhir dengan mengenal pasti di mana kuasa negara bermula dan menggunakan kedaulatan sebagai batu sentuhan. Yang kedua memperoleh had tersebut secara dalaman tanpa merujuk kepada negeri-negeri. Tetapi kedua-duanya adalah usaha untuk mengurangi pandangan luas mengenai kekuasaan persekutuan yang telah berkembang setelah Perjanjian Baru dan dengan demikian melestarikan zon otonomi bagi negeri-negeri.


Bagaimana Federalism Settled States vs Federal Rights - SEJARAH

Eugene Boyd
Penganalisis dalam Kerajaan Nasional Amerika
Bahagian Kerajaan

Dikemas kini pada 6 Januari 1997
RINGKASAN

Sejak pengesahan Perlembagaan, yang menubuhkan kesatuan negara di bawah sistem pemerintahan persekutuan, dua persoalan telah menimbulkan perdebatan yang cukup besar: Apakah sifat kesatuan itu? Apa kuasa, keistimewaan, tugas, dan tanggungjawab yang diberikan oleh Perlembagaan kepada pemerintah negara dan cadangan kepada negeri dan rakyat? Selama 208 tahun sejarah Perlembagaan, isu-isu ini telah diperdebatkan berulang kali dan telah dibentuk dan dibentuk oleh sejarah politik, sosial, dan ekonomi negara.

Selama tempoh pra-federalisme, negara ini melancarkan perang untuk kemerdekaan dan menubuhkan bentuk pemerintahan gabungan yang mewujudkan liga negara-negara berdaulat. Kekurangan dalam Artikel Gabungan mendorong pemansuhannya dan pengesahan Perlembagaan baru yang mewujudkan sistem pemerintahan persekutuan yang terdiri daripada pemerintah negara dan negeri. Almost immediately upon its adoption, issues concerning state sovereignty and the supremacy of federal authority were hotly debated and ultimately led to the Civil War.

The period from 1789 to 1901 has been termed the era of Dual Federalism. It has been characterized as a era during which there was little collaboration between the national and state governments. Cooperative Federalism is the term given to the period from 1901 to 1960. This period was marked by greater cooperation and collaboration between the various levels of government. It was during this era that the national income tax and the grant-in-aid system were authorized in response to social and economic problems confronting the nation. The period from 1960 to 1968 was called Creative Federalism by President Lyndon Johnson's Administration. President Johnson's Creative Federalism as embodied in his Great Society program, was, by most scholars' assessments, a major departure from the past. It further shifted the power relationship between governmental levels toward the national government through the expansion of grant-in-aid system and the increasing use of regulations. Contemporary federalism, the period from 1970 to the present, has been characterized by shifts in the intergovernmental grant system, the growth of unfunded federal mandates, concerns about federal regulations, and continuing disputes over the nature of the federal system.

In 1789, thirteen years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and eight years after ratification of the Articles of Confederation, which established a league of sovereign states, the nation repealed the Articles of Confederation and ratified a new Constitution creating the United States. Since its ratification the Constitution, which established a union of states under a federal system of governance, two questions have generated considerable debate: What is the nature of the union? What powers, privileges, duties, and responsibilities does the Constitution grant to the national government and reserve to the states and to the people? During the 208-year history of the Constitution the answers to these questions have been debated time and again and have shaped and been shaped by the nation's political, social and economic history.

What is federalism? According to James Q. Wilson and John DiIulio, Jr., it is a system of government "in which sovereignty is shared [between two or more levels of government] so that on some matters the national government is supreme and on others the states, regions, or provincial governments are supreme. 1 There are three essential features that characterize a federal system of governance. First, there must be a provision for more than one level of government to act simultaneously on the same territory and on the same citizens. The American federal system is composed of a national government and the 50 states, both recognized by the Constitution. Local governments, creations of states, while not mentioned in the Constitution, are nevertheless key players in American federalism. Their power to regulate and legislate is derived from state Constitutions.

Second, each government must have its own authority and sphere of power, though they may overlap. When state and federal authority conflict, federal law is supreme under the Constitution. Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution delegates certain enumerated powers to the national government that includes the exclusive power to mint currency, establish and maintain an army and navy, declare war, regulate interstate commerce, establish post offices, establish the seat of national government, and enter into treaties. The Constitution reserves powers not granted to the national government to states, or the people, and it establishes certain concurrent powers to be shared between state and national governments including the power to tax. In addition, the Constitution prohibits the exercise of certain powers or actions by both state and national governments including taking private land withoutjust compensation establishing a national religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Third, neither level of government (federal or state governments) can abolish the other. The Civil War was fought not only on the question of slavery but also central to the conflict were questions of states' sovereignty including the power to nullify federal laws or dissolve the Union.

This report identifies several significant eras and events in the evolution of American federalism and provides a capsule description or discussion of each. It should be noted that among experts in the fleld of federalism there may be a general consensus concerning the evolution of American federalism however, the choice of events and scholarly interpretations of such events may vary and are by nature subjective.

PRE-FEDERALISM PERIOD: 1775 TO 1789

During this period, the former colonists successfully fought the War of Independence and established a national government under the Articles of Confederation. Disenchanted with the functioning of the national government, the states called a Constitutional Convention with the aim of addressing the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. Instead, the delegates drafted and the states ratified, a new Constitution that created a federal system of government.

  • 1776 -- Declaration of Independence. In the midst of the Revolutionary War, which lasted from 1775 to 1783, delegates to the Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia and on July 4, 1776 adopted the Declaration of Independence. Each of the former colonies also established state governments to replace the colonial charters. The Continental Congress was given the power to carry on the war effort.
  • 1777 -- Drafting Articles of Confederation. The Continental Congress drafted the Articles of Confederation, which defined the powers of the Congress. Leery of a strong central government, the former colonists created a Confederation or "League of States" that was state-centered rather than nation-centered.
  • 1781 -- Articles of Confederation approved by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation legislative, judicial, and executive powers rested with Congress. The Articles of Confederation established a Congress comprised of one representative from each state, it limited the power of the central government, and it delegated to the states the power to levy taxes and regulate commerce. The Confederation Congress was given the power to declare war, make treaties, and maintain an army and navy. The Articles of Confederation had several noteworthy flaws that made it ineffective: 1) it did not provide for an executive to administer the government, 2) the national government lacked the power to tax, and 3) it lacked the power to regulate commerce.
  • 1786 -- Articles of Confederation Reconsidered. Demand for re- examination of the Articles of Confederation was prompted by a post- Revolutionary War economic depression rebellion in Massachusetts among debt ridden former soldiers, led by Daniel Shays (Shays Rebellion) concerns about the ability of the Confederation to support its currency or meet domestic and foreign debt incurred during the war issues surrounding westward expansion and state tariff conflicts. A group later known as Federalists and including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, sought support for a strong central government that could deal with internal insurrections, arbitrate state tariff conflicts and other conflicts among states, and manage westward expansion. Members of the group called for a Constitutional Convention in 1787 to reconsider the Articles of Confederation.
  • 1787 -- Drafting a New Constitution. A Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia from May until September and drafted a new Constitution. Under the new Constitution the central government, It. in order to form a more perfect union," was given additional powers that included the power to levy taxes and control commerce among states and with foreign countries. In addition, the Convention created three co-equal branches of government -- executive, judicial, and legislative.- In a compromise (Connecticut Compromise) between rival plans offered by Virginia and New Jersey delegates, the Constitution called for the creation of a legislative branch composed of two chambers. Members of the House of Representative from each state were to be elected by the people of that state based on state population. The Senate would be comprised of two Senators from each state elected by their respective state legislatures. The Constitution included provisions that ensured the supremacy of federal laws (Article VI), but also recognized state powers and the power of the people. (Amendment X).
  • 1787 & 1788 -- Campaigning for a New Constitution. The Federalist, a series of 85 essays by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton writing under the pen name Publius, was published during this period. The papers provided the philosophical underpinning in support of the new Constitution. Those opposed to the new Constitution (labeled Anti-Federalists but calling themselves Federal Republicans) also published articles under the pen names Brutus and Cato, arguing for support of a federal system of governance that would protect the state governments from the tyranny of the national government. The Anti-Federalists or Federal Republicans would eventually evolve into the Democratic Republican party that ascended to power with the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1801.

DUAL FEDERALISM PHASE 1: 1789 TO 1865

The concept of dual federalism is the idea that the national and state governments were equal partners with separate and distinct spheres of authority. Despite the doctrine of implied powers, as first enunciated in McCulloch v. Maryland, the federal or national government was limited in its authority to those powers enumerated in the Constitution. There existed little collaboration between the national and state governments and occasional tensions over the nature of the union and the doctrine of nullification and state sovereignty. The states rights debate and the nature of the union -- whether the Constitution created a league of sovereign states or a inseparable union -was a major issue in the Civil War.

  • 1789 -- Constitution Approved by the States. State ratifying conventions convened and ratified the new Constitution, which required 3/4ths (9) of the states to vote for its approval.
  • 1789 to 1801 -- The Federalist Period. The period takes its name from the dominant political party of the time, which believed in a strong central government. Its leaders included George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams. They were opposed by AntiFederalists or Democratic Republicans, such as Thomas Jefferson, who argued against a strong central government and for state centered governance. In 1790, the federal government assumed responsibility for the war debt, which some have called an early form of federal aid. In 1791, the first ten amendments-the Bill of Rights-were added to the Constitution after being ratified by 3/4ths of the states. The Tenth Amendment protected the rights of the states and declared that all powers not expressly delegated to the central government by the Constitution were reserved for the states. This laid the foundation for the concepts of states rights, limited national government, and dual spheres of authority between state and national governments.

In 1791, Congress established the Bank of the United States at the urging of Alexander Hamilton. Thomas Jefferson opposed the idea of a national bank. Congress granted the Bank a 20-year charter. Protracted debate over the constitutionality of the Bank by pro- and anti-bank factions led to the defeat of an effort to renew the Bank's charter in 1811. The charter renewal effort was defeated partly because of the restraints the Bank put on state chartered private banks in an effort to control inflation and because some viewed the concept of central banking as a attack on state sovereignty. Years later the central or national bank controversy was at the center of the debate concerning the enumerated powers clause of the Tenth Amendment.

McCulloch v. Maryland 5 settled the question of national supremacy for a time. Justice Marshall's interpretation of the Constitution was premised on the notion that the national government was the creation of the people and not the states and that Article VI established federal law as the supreme law of the land ( supremacy clause). Justice Marshall wrote that the power to tax involves the power to destroy. If the Bank, an entity of the federal government, could be taxed out of existence by the states it would be a breach of Article VI, one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution --the supremacy of the national government.

The role of the national government was also settled by the Civil War. Before the Civil War, the role of government was generally characterized by decentralization. The national government acted as servant to the states. During the War, state militia and state recruited volunteers were replaced by a policy of federal conscription and the national government reclaimed control over currency and banking, which had been delegated in large part to the states during the 1830s.

DUAL FEDERALISM: PART II 1865 TO 1901

Although the era of dual federalism continued, this period was marked by erratic but increasing presence of the national government into areas that had previously been the purview of the states. The Sherman Anti-trust Act, the Interstate Commerce Commission Act, as well as the Twelfth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were significant events that pushed federal authority into areas such as the power to regulate business and the economy, as well as civil rights. In the midst of the industrial revolution, in an effort to control the monopolistic tendencies of business, Congress passed legislation that attempted to control commerce. Congress' authority to control commerce was at the center of several legal disputes. In a series of court cases, the power of the national government (Congress) to regulate commerce was upheld. Two of the more notable laws are the Interstate Commerce Commission Act of 1887 and the Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890. Court cases included Munn v. Illinois 16 and Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Rail Road v. Illinois 17 rendered in 1886, in which the Court held that the state could not regulate rail rates if, as a consequence, it affected a portion of the rate charged in transportation of goods across state lines. In the area of civil rights, the Court was far more restrictive in its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection, due process and privileges and immunities clauses. In a series of cases, including Plessy v. Ferguson and Bradwell v. Illinois, the Court rulings upheld state laws restricting the freedoms and constitutional protections of certain gender or racial classes (women and minorities).

COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM: 1901 TO 1960

This period marked an era of greater cooperation and collaboration between the various levels of government. It was during this era that the national income tax and the grant-in-aid system were authorized in response to social and economic problems confronting the nation. Though the first part of the 20th century has been characterized by some federalism scholars as one of inactivity, by 1920 eleven grant programs had been created and funded at a cost of $30 million. During this period the federal government was seen as "servant of the states" in the kinds of activities funded. The federal grant system, spurred by the Great Depression, was expanded and fundamentally changed the power relations between federal and state governments.

    1910 -- New Nationalism. President Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism initiative sought to expand the powers of the national government. His view of government contended that matters of national concern had become too decentralized or as he stated:

"[The New Nationalism] is still more impatient of the impotence which springs from overdivision of governmental power, the impotence which makes it possible for local selfishness or for legal cunning, hired by wealthy special interests, to bring national activities to a deadlock. The New Nationalism regards the executive power as the steward of the public welfare." 25

"The question of the relation of the States to the federal government is the cardinal question of our constitutional system. At every turn of our national development, we have been brought face to face with it, and no definition either of statesmen or of judges has ever quieted or decided it. 26


As President, Woodrow Wilson built upon the Roosevelt program. He sought to continue the trend toward more active national cooperation with other governments. Daniel J. Elazar, a noted scholar of federalism, contends that Wilson, in line with congressionally-determined national policies, expanded the federal role beyond "servant of the states. 27

CREATIVE FEDERALISM: 1960 TO 1968

President Lyndon Johnson's Creative Federalism as embodied in his Great Society program, was, by most scholars' assessments, a major departure from the past. It further shifted the power relationship between governmental levels toward the national government through the expansion of grant-in-aid system and the increasing use of regulations.

  • 1962 -- Supreme Court Forces Reapportionment. The Supreme Court's ruling in Baker v. Carr 32 is a noted example in judicial intervention into state political affairs. The Tennessee General Assembly had not reapportioned legislative districts since 1901 despite a state constitutional requirement to apportion according to population. The migration of people from rural to urban areas without legislative districts being redrawn to reflect population shifts had resulted in city residents being under-represented in the state legislature. The Supreme Court required the reapportionment of legislative districts based on population (proportional representation). The Supreme Court ruled that the denial of equal representation (districts equal in population size) was a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Based on standards established by the Supreme Court, every state except Oregon was forced to reapportion to achieve districts equal in population. Another legacy of Baker v. Carr was the reinvigoration of the practice of gerrymandering of legislative districts after each decennial Census in order to achieve or maintain some political advantage.
  • 1964 -- Creative Federalism and the Great Society. Creative Federalism and the Great Society sought to expand the national government's role in an effort to achieve socially desirable outcomes (i.e reductions in poverty, elimination of hunger). Prior to the Johnson Administration, federal involvement often had to be justified as a necessary evil in order to legitimize intrusion into state and local affairs. Under the new theory, federal involvement was justified as long as Congress could establish a national purpose for such actions. The Great Society programs used states and local governments as intermediaries or agents to implement national policies, and the volume of federal regulations increased as the federal government became increasingly involved in areas that had previously been the purview of state and local governments or the private sector.

CONTEMPORARY FEDERALISM: 1970 TO 1997

This period has been characterized by shifts in the intergovernmental grant system, the growth of unfunded federal mandates, concerns about federal regulations, and continuing disputes over the nature of the federal system.

  • 1970s -- New Federalism: Phase I. During the 1960s concerns were raised about the intergovernmental grant system, particularly about duplication, fragmentation, overlap, and confusion. These concerns resulted in attempts by the Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford Administrations to redirect power relations within the federal system. The Administrations' principal tools were revenue sharing and the consolidation of federal aid programs into six special revenue sharing programs. The intent was to shift funds, authority, and responsibility to states and local governments in an effort to more effectively manage the intergovernmental grant system. Though not completely successful, the Nixon era did recast the debate on the roles of various levels of governments.
  • 1976 -- Commerce Clause, Enumerated Powers, and State and Local Governments. National League of Cities v. Usury 33 addressed the conflict between the Tenth Amendment's enumerated powers clause, which limited the federal government's power to those specified in the Constitution and the commerce clause of Article I, which bestowed upon the national government the power to regulate commerce. In ruling on the constitutionality of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 34 which established minimum wage and maximum working hours for private and public sector employees, the Supreme Court addressed one of the fundamental issues in federalism: to what extent may the Congress impose upon the sovereignty of the states. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fair Labor Standards Act's 1974 amendments, which extended hour and wage coverage to state and local public employees, violated state sovereignty as protected under the Tenth Amendment.
  • 1980s -- New Federalism: Phase II. Initiatives of the Ronald Reagan Administration stimulated the debate on the appropriate roles of federal, state, and local government. President Ronald Reagan, rather than attempt to more rationally manage federal aid as was the case in the Nixon Administration, sought to fundamentally restructure the system of governance. In his 1981 inaugural address, President Reagan raised an issue as old as the Republic: what is the nature of the union? The President stated that "the federal government did not create the states, the states created the federal government." 35 This statement expressed the sentiments found in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, the Webster/Hayne debate, the doctrine of nullification and state sovereignty and the states' rights philosophy. The modern debate has also been fueled by dissatisfaction with the effectiveness and efficiency of the national government. In 1981 Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that consolidated a number of social programs into nine block grants, which allowed for greater state and local autonomy and flexibility in the fashioning of local strategies to address federal objectives. The Administration was not successful in the second phase of New Federalism, which would have reallocated federal and state responsibility and resources for welfare, food stamps, and medicare and would have turned back revenue sources to the states. The George Bush Administration also offered a turn back proposal.
  • 1985 -- National League of Cities v. Usury Reconsidered In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority 36 the Supreme Court revisited the issue of state sovereignty and state and local government protection from the imposition of federal actions. Garcia v. San Antonio reversed National League of Cities v. Usury. Garcia has had two significant impacts on federalism, according to some scholars. One, under Garcia the Supreme Court held that the Tenth Amendment does not protect state and local governments from compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act, which is counter to the concept of dual federalism. Two, the Court seems to be backing away from its role as final arbiter or interpreter of the Constitution in disputes between political branches of the federal government and the states. The Court appears to be allowing such disputes to be resolved by the "political"-that is the legislative-branch of government.
  • 1992 to 1995 -- New Federalism: Phase 111. The Bill Clinton Administration's Reinventing Government Initiative and the House Republicans' Contract with America are efforts to rearrange the power relationships in the federal system. Both efforts seek to devolve greater authority to lower levels of government. However, the initial reinvention effort, as embodied in its National Performance Review Creating A Government that Works Better and Costs Less, 37 concentrated on achieving management efficiencies at the federal level. Practical outcomes have included the issuance of E.O. 12866, 38 which encourages regulatory reform such as coordinating and consolidating planning and review requirement among complementary federal programs. The Contract with America 39 is a document signed by Republicans campaigning for House seats during the 1994 election season. It includes drafts of the House Republicans' ten legislative priorities for the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, several of which focused on changing the power relationships between the national and state governments. Presently, it has refocused debate on the role of government and what level of government is best suited to carry out certain functions. The present federalism debate has resulted in the passage of unfunded federal mandate legislation, which requires the federal government to assess the cost/benefit impact of federal legislation on states, local governmens, and the private sector has fueled discussions concerning the possible elimination of several federal departments has prompted action to reform the regulatory process and has caused the consideration of legislation that would eliminate, downsize, consolidate, or block grant a number of federal programs in an effort to foster greater flexibility and control by state governments. This debate has been driven by fiscal and philosophical factors including the desire to reduce the federal deficit, to achieve management efficiencies at the federal level, and to reconsider the proper roles of federal, state, and local governments.
  • 1995 to 1997 -- The 104th Congress convened with the historic installation of a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. Taking control of the House of Representatives after 40 years in the minority, the new Republican majority moved quickly to fulfill its Contract with America. Among the accomplishments of the 104th Congress was the passage of the Unfunded Federal Mandate Reform Act of 1995, P.L. 104-4, which requires the federal government to assess the cost/benefit impact of federal legislation and regulations on states, local governments, and the private sector. The Congress also considered but failed to win passage of a balance budget amendment that if approved by the states would have significantly affected the intergovernmental grant system and the relationships between the national government and states and localities.

The second session of the 104th Congress brought a renewed push on several federalism/intergovernmental relations issues. Congress passed legislation restructuring the delivery of rural development services, creating new block grants in the areas of law enforcement, rural development, and welfare. Other block granting proposals consolidating job training, education, food stamps, and medicaid failed to win final congressional approval. The Congress also passed a sweeping telecommunications act including provisions reaffirming the authority of state and local governments to regulate and manage public rights-of-way, requiring reasonable compensation for the use of public rights-of-way, and prohibiting the preemption of local zoning authority in the siting of cellular towers. In addition, the Act preempts local, but not state, taxation of direct satellite broadcast services. For his part, President Clinton vetoed product liability legislation that would have preempted state tort laws governing the awarding of damages in civil cases.

State's Rights and Responsibilities Revived. The Supreme Court, in several cases, some narrowly decided, has provided ample evidence that the era of judicial restraint may be over in matters of federalism and the power relationships between the federal government and the states. In 1985, in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, the Court declared that states must find redress from congressional regulation through the political/legislative process and not the judiciary. In several recent cases, starting with New York v. United States 40 and including United States v. Lopez 41 and Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 42 the Supreme Court has taken a more activist role, limiting the power of the federal government and narrowing the Court's interpretation of the commerce clause in favor of state rights. In 1992, in New York v. United States, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional provisions of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. 43 The Act required states to establish sites for the disposal of non-federal radioactive waste generated by businesses within their borders. States failing to establish such disposal sites were to be legally liable for damages incurred by businesses such as hospitals, nuclear utility companies, and medical research labs that generate low-level radioactive material. In a victory for state's rights advocates, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not compel states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.

In a second victory for states, the Supreme Court, in 1995, in United States v. Lopez, in a 5-4 decision, narrowed the interpretation of the commerce clause when declaring the Drug Free School Zone Act of 1990 44 unconstitutional. The Act made it a federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. The Court ruled that the Act could not be justified under the commerce clause of the Constitution. The Court's narrow decision was seen as a victory for states' rights advocates who asserted that the Act intruded on the law enforcement responsibilities of states.

In a third decision, Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, affirming the sovereignty of states, the Supreme Court ruled that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 45 allowed Indian tribes to undertake certain gambling activities on Indian lands only after entering into a compact with the state in which the gaming activity is to be located. The Act gave Indian tribes the right to sue states in federal court to compel good faith negotiations in establishing the compact. The Supreme Court ruled the provision allowing Indian tribes to sue states in federal court unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution's Eleventh Amendment restriction prohibiting any person of another state or foreign land from suing a state in federal court.

--U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, Congressional Term and the Concept of Dual Citizenship. In a defeat for states' rights advocates, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, declared term limit legislation enacted by several states unconstitutional. Proponents of term limit legislation argued that the Constitution (Article 1, Section 4) allowed each state to fix the time, place, and manner of elections for Senators and Representatives of Congress. The Supreme Court ruling reaffirmed the concept of dual citizenship enunciated in 1873 in the Slaughterhouse Cases and Bradwell v. Illinois. The Court ruled that a state could not add to the qualifications for federal office as enunciated in Article I of the Constitution. Further, Justice Kennedy, in a concurring opinion, noted that term limits violate the "fundamental principles of federalism." He argued that there exists a federal right of citizenship, a relationship between the people . and their National Government, with which the states may not interfere."

--During its 1996 session, the Supreme Court, in Printz v. United States, 46 heard arguments challenging the Brady Gun Control Act. 47 The Act establishes a 5-day waiting period and compels local law enforcement officials to undertake a criminal background check of persons wishing to purchase a handgun. The Act has been challenged as a violation of state sovereignty. The Supreme Court will render its decision sometime in 1997. The case will have important federalism implications and will provide a clue to the direction of the Supreme Court in matters of federalism and state sovereignty.

--ACIR Abolished. Federal financial support for the independent federal agency, which began its work in 1959, terminated in 1996.

1. Wilson, James Q. and John J. DiIulio, Jr. American Government Institutions and Policies. Lexington, D.C. Heath and Company, 1995. p. A-49.

2. 1 Stat 571 and 1 Stat 577

4. Jackson, Andrew. For and Against the Bank Renewal Bill. Andrew Jackson: Veto Message. In The Annals of Anierica. Chicago, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1968. v. 5. p 535.

5. McCulloch v Maryland, 17 US 316, 4 Wheat 316, 4 LEd 519 (1819).

6. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1, 9 Wheat 1, 6 LEd 23 (1824).

7. Calhoun, John C., The Essential Calhoun: Selections from, Writings, Speeches, and Letters, Clyde N. Wilson ed., New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1992. p. 59-60.

8. O'Connor, Karen and Larry J. Sabato. American Government.- Roots and Reform, New York, McMillan Publishing Company, 1993. p.71.

9. Webster, Daniel. Congressional Debates. Mr. Foot's Resolution. 21st Cong., lst Sess. Washington, In Gales and Seaton's Register, v. 6, part 1. Gales and Seaton, 1830. p. 80.

12. Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 US 539, 16 Pet 539, 10 LEd 1060 (1842).

15. Scott V. Sandford, 60 US 393, 19 How 393, 15 LEd 1123 (1842).

16. Munn v. Illinois. 94 US 113, 24 LEd 77 (1886).

17. Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Rail Road v. Illinois. 7 SCt 4, 118 US 557, 30 Led 244 (1886).

18. Slaughterhouse Cases. 83 US 36, 16 Wall 36, 21 LEd 394 (1873) and 77 US 273, 10 Wall 273, 19 LEd 915 (1873).

19. Bradwell v. Illinois. 83 US 130, 16 Wall 130, 21 LEd 442 (1873).

22. Plessy v. Ferguson, 18 SCt 1138, 163 US 537, 41 LEd 256 (1896).

23. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. 73 SCt 1, 344 US 1, 97 LEd 3 (1954).

24. Williams v. Mississippi. 18 SCt 583, 170 US 213, 42 LEd 1012 (1896).

25. Roosevelt, Theodore, New Nationalism. In The Annals of America. Chicago, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1968. p. 253-254.

26. Wilson, Woodrow. Constitutional Government in the United States. New York, Columbia University Press, 1961. p. 173.

27. Elazar, Daniel J. The Evolving Federal System. In Pious, Richard, ed. The Power to Govern: Assessing Reform in the United States. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, v. 34, 1981. p. 6.

28. U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Federalism: Key Episodes in the History of the American Federal System (82-139 GOV). CRS Report for Congress, by Sandra Osbourn, August 16, 1982. Washington, 1982. p. 33.

29. Osbourn. Federalism, p. 38.

32. Baker v. Carr. 82 SCt 691, 369 US 186, 7 LEd2d 663 (1962).

33. National League of Cities v. Usury. 96 SCt 2465, 426 US 833, 49 LEd2d 245 (1976).

35. General Services Administration. National Archives and Records Service. Office of the Federal Register. Public Papers of the Presidents - Ronald Reagan 1981. Inaugural Address January 20, 1981. Washington, U.S. Govt. Cetak. Off., 1982. p 2.

36. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority. 105 SCt 1005, 83 Led 2d 1016 (1985).

37. Report of the National Performance Review. From Red Tape to Results, Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less. Vice President Al Gore. Washington, September 7, 1993. U.S. Govt. Cetak. Off., 1993.

38. U.S. President, 1992- (Clinton). Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Federal Register, v. 58, October 4, 1993. p. 51734.

39. Gingrich, Newt, Dick Armey, and the House Republicans. Contract with America. Gillespie, Ed and Bob Schellhas, eds. New York, Times Books, 1994. p. 196.

40. New York v. United States . 488 U.S. 1041 (1992).

41. United States v. Lopez . 115 SCt 1624, 131 LEd2d 626 (1995).

42. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida. 116 SCt 1114, 134 LEd2d 252 (1996).

46. Printz v. United States, 117 SCt 480 (1996).

American Federalism: The Third Century. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, John Kincaid ed., Newbury Park, Sage Publications, May 1990. 205 p.

Beer, Samuel H. To Make a Nation: The Rediscovery of American Federalism. Cambridge, Mass., The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1993. 473 p.

Brennan, William J. Jr. The Bill of Rights and the States. Santa Barbara, Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, 1961. 24 p.

Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. The Federalist. Benjamin Fletcher Wright ed. Cambridge, Mass., The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1.974. 527 p.

Peterson, Paul E. Who Should Do What: Divided Responsibility in the Federal System. The Brookings Review. Spring 1995: 6-11.

Stanfield, Rochelle L. The New Federalism. National Journal, v. 27, January 28, 1995: 226-230.

Stuart, Elaine. The Conference of the States Gains Momentum. State Government News, March 1995: 16-19.

The States and Federalism. CQ Researcher, v. 6, No. 34, September 13, 1996: 793-816.


FEDERAL SUPREMACY VS. STATES’ RIGHTS

In the United States of America, our U.S. Constitution creates a Constitutional Representative Republic, as opposed to the myth that we are a pure democracy. That Constitution lays out the specific enumerated powers of each of three branches of the Federal government, and the authorities to carry out those assigned duties.

The U.S. Bill of Rights is an additional statement of restrictions upon Federal authority, not the least of which is the Tenth Amendment, protecting the Rights of a sovereign state and the people who reside within each state.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” – Amendment X

How does Amendment X line up with the Federal Supremacy clause found in Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause, which establishes that the federal constitution and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions?

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” – Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution

Is a balance of powers between the states and the federal government an “unconstitutional” concept? Or is this a highly “constitutional” concept? Is Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution in conflict with Amendment X of the Bill of Rights? Does the Supremacy Clause take precedence over Amendment X, or does Amendment X take precedence over the Supremacy Clause?

Only in recent years has this issue become bastardized by “legal experts,” including a number of legal beagles at so-called “conservative think tanks” like Heritage Foundation, Wall Builders and ALEC, all of which mysteriously find themselves doing the bidding of the tyrannical Fed on far too many occasions.

As is always the case with legal text, the devil is in the details… In this case, the details of the Supremacy Clause itself…

The first key phrase is “made in pursuance thereof…” – Before any federal law can enjoy federal legal supremacy, it must meet the stated standards of this section, which states that all federal laws must be made first and foremost in pursuance (or furtherance) of the Constitution itself, to include the Bill of Rights, which became an equal part of the U.S. Constitution on December 15, 1791.

“…that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution ” – Resolved in the Preamble to the U.S. Bill of Rights

Next, federal laws “shall be made, under the authority of the United States” in order to enjoy federal supremacy. The authority referred to in this section of the Supremacy clause is the authorities granted the Federal government by the people and the states under the enumerated powers of each branch of the Federal government.

To enjoy supremacy, a federal law must first be “made in pursuance thereof” (all other constitutional text) and be “made under the authority of the United States,” as defined in the enumerated powers of the Federal government according to the U.S. Constitution.

To put a fine point on the matter, the Constitution of the United States assigns all “law-making” authority to Congress alone, the legislative branch. This means that policies set by either the Executive branch or the Judicial branch cannot possibly be “laws,” according to the Constitution.

Further, only when Congress enacts laws which are “in pursuance thereof” – within the purview of, or under the authority granted via the Constitution, and not in conflict with the Bill of Rights, can those laws enjoy Supremacy.

Policies set by the Executive or Judicial branch are not laws at all. Therefore, they cannot enjoy supremacy in a Constitutional Representative Republic. Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution states unequivocally that – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Constitutional Laws do indeed enjoy Federal Supremacy. However, what about unconstitutional acts of the Federal government? Do unconstitutional intrusions into states or individual rights also enjoy Federal Supremacy?

According to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the answer is an unambiguous NO! As all governmental powers are derived by the consent of the people… the people have the final say.

But it is the U.S. Supreme Court which has original jurisdiction on any dispute over constitutional authority arising between a state, the people and the Federal government.

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party , the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” – Article III – Section II – Clause II

The Article VI Supremacy Clause protects “constitutional” laws passed by the law-making branch of the Federal government, so long as they are passed by constitutional means and do not violate any constitutionally protected rights.

However, Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution protects the states and the people from the “unconstitutional” acts of the Federal government. Acts which are beyond the authority granted each branch, or are in conflict with constitutionally protected rights, are themselves, “unconstitutional.” As such, they enjoy no force of law at all, much less any form of supremacy.

Although many state legislators remain entirely misguided on the subject, millions of American citizens are awakening to the reality that their government has been functioning in a tyrannical “unconstitutional” manner for decades now.

As long as state legislators keep listening to federal “experts” on the subject, they will remain misguided and unable to represent the interests of their increasingly angry and desperate constituents.

But if the people will take the time to read and understand the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, they can properly educate their state legislators and only then can they begin to work together to reinstate the proper balance of powers assured every state and every citizen in our Founding documents.

In a Constitutional Representative Republic, the Constitution has Supremacy, not the federal authority. The federal authority is limited to enumerated powers and constitutional processes. The people, not an unelected oligarchy of lifetime political appointees, are the final arbiters of what is or isn’t constitutional.


Issues under the Jurisdiction of Federal and State Laws

Following are some of the issues that come under the federal law:

    law law
  • Undang-undang Keselamatan Sosial / SSI
  • Undang-undang hak sivil
  • Undang-undang paten dan hak cipta
  • Undang-undang jenayah persekutuan (iaitu pemalsuan wang)

Isu-isu berikut ditentukan dan disahkan oleh negara:

  • Perkara jenayah dan masalah keluarga
  • Perkara kebajikan, bantuan awam atau Medicaid
  • Wasiat, harta pusaka dan harta pusaka
  • Kontrak harta tanah dan harta tanah lain
  • Kecederaan peribadi seperti kemalangan kereta atau penyelewengan perubatan
  • Pampasan pekerja untuk kecederaan di tempat kerja

Tonton videonya: Sistem Federalisme Kerajaan Persekutuan Negeri dan Tempatan