• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Examine the Causes and Consequences of the changing balance of power between the federal and state governments since 1980.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Examine the Causes and Consequences of the changing balance of power between the federal and state governments since 1980 In the years preceding 1980 the balance of power between the federal and state governments had been evolving and changing. This was due to both the changing times in America and the differing philosophies of those men in the famous oval office who had different ideas about how little or large a role the federal government should play. This role has been basically decreasing since 1980 with recent US president's adhering to Nixon's idea of 'new federalism' although the federal government still does have a lot of the power that it gained in the years leading up to 1980 as a result of revered president's such as Franklin Roosevelt increasing this power. Those presidents who took the view that the powers of the federal government should widen mainly did so because decisive federal action was needed at the time to ease America's problems. Since 1980(with the possible exception of September 11th) America hasn't faced such difficulties, which has meant that the Federal government hasn't had to do so much and therefore its powers have decreased. ...read more.

Middle

The change in the balance of power since 1980 has also been affected by the attitudes and actions of the executive who have been less inclined to use grant-in aid programmes which has weakened the stranglehold of the federal government on the states. This point is backed up by the fact that in 1995 federal aid accounted for 22.2% of state and local outlays compared to 26.3% in 1980. This money is usually given by the federal government with strings attached and a proviso that the states will agree with a certain area of federal government policy to receive aid. For example when the federal government wanted to raise the national drinking age to 21 they offered all of the states a huge grant for road building and this was money that the states needed. Therefore all of the states decided to tow the federal governments line, enforce the change in the law and receive their grant. This clearly shows how the federal government can use grants to increase their power by making states agree to their proposals and therefore increase the balance of power in favour of the federal government. ...read more.

Conclusion

This can be starkly contrasted to the presidency of Johnson in the 1960s when the balance of power was firmly with the federal government. Johnson was voted in on the promise of achieving a 'Greater Society' and he was able to pass numerous Acts such as Medicaid, which meant that he was carrying out what he had promised the voters. Therefore it can be said that since 1980 US president's have not been able to carry out reforms even if they have a popular mandate to do so. This due to a shift in power towards the states who now have much more control over issues such as healthcare. Even though the recent atrocity in New York has raised question marks over whether or not more power should be in the hands of the states, it is clear that since 1980 the trend has been for states to gain an increase in this power. While this is the case it is evident that a lot of power still resides in the hands of a federal government who try to maintain the USA as a centralised nation and it is clear that in times of crisis, this is what American's want. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United States section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United States essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Outline how and why federalism has changed since the 1960s.

    5 star(s)

    Clinton was also lucky in that he was President during an economic boom which led to a dramatic increase in tax revenues for the states and less reliance on federal handouts. Bush Jnr also an extremely conservative republican and former governor wanted more influence for the states and a lesser role for the federal government.

  2. How and Why has federalism changes sice the 1960s

    He may arguably further the concept of government intervention with policies similar to affirmative action, since he is a very left wing democrat, and also is being accused of being socialistic by some Americans in his approaches.

  1. How is Britain's constitution changing in the 21st century?

    Criticisms exacted on Labour's F.O.I. legislation are at its 'paternalistic model of open government' (Flinders, 2000, 428). There is a distinct variance between a government that is open, which was what the previous Conservative administration strove for, and Freedom of Information which Labour initially forwarded.

  2. presidential power how far does it go

    In finite terms, the constitution specifies that habeas corpus can only be suspended for civil war or insurrection. And, although these prisoners are not American citizens, and therefore may not have the rights of citizens, there is still room to debate whether the conditions of their incarceration is contrary to the spirit if not the letter of American law.

  1. 'Examine the reasons for change in the balance of power between the federal and ...

    This period was regarded as 'New Federalism' Introduced in the 1960s as a reaction against the continuing expansion of the federal government's activity and expenditure, President Nixon was committed to a system of 'new federalism' to resolve the proper balance of power, regaining some of the states former authority.

  2. Is the EU a federal state?

    The only supranational institution was the High Authority. However the pro-federalist had to face a number of distinct politicians who did not believe that a federal Europe was the solution. Two of these were General Charles de Gaulle, and Mrs.

  1. A Trend of Decentralization

    There was an explosion of subcommittees which aided the dispersion of power within Congress. "The dispersion of committees maximizes the opportunities of committee chairs to use their power to distribute benefits directly to their districts and states and to take positions on issues that will be appealing to their constituents."2

  2. Is the USA still a federal state?

    Additionally in relation to national security, spending dramatically increased from $290 million to $651 million between 2001 and 2009 and the Patriot Act resulted in a string of legislation that would significantly affect the conduct of security measures from in the USA affecting the lifestyles of all.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work