Is the USA still a federal state?

One may identify that Obama’s presidency too reflected the growing strength of the federal government. The first year of the president’s terms witnessed the proliferation of a stimulus package through the passing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The $787 billion invested to the programme which later grew to $831 billion, was spent on infrastructure, health, education and federal incentives and unemployment benefits. Clearly this economic recovery plan shows federal activism, but a necessity considering the economic climate.

However a more controversial feature of Obama’s presidency was his healthcare reform, to which Republicans regarded as the end of federalism and the ‘rise of socialism.’ Despite both a Supreme Court backing and a legitimate winning in 2012 election Obama care has provoked widespread criticism that this health care reform is an arbitrary imposition on state governments to administrate due to the following reasons. Firstly the law is a universal health care reform affecting all of America, secondly it requires that all are health care insured (and if unable to afford then payments for insurance can be subsidised) and that states introduce health care marketplaces for the prospective insured.  A minority discontented group in the Republican Party, the Tea party, reflect the criticism against the measure, and such criticism culminated during the government shutdown in October 2013. Therefore Obama’s presidency can be identified as being dominant in the political system. However one must acknowledge the Republican Majority in the House of Representatives being a check on the president’s power and in terms of federalism that state governments have been able to shape aspects of Obama’s environmental policy. Consider California, regarded as the pioneer state in the development of environmental policy to reduce carbon emissions.

States power is arguably insufficiently protected against what one may consider as an increasingly overbearing centralised policy. This may be the fault of the constitution by the 10th amendment does not specify the rights granted to the states. This contrasts with the necessary and proper clause of Article I enabling congress’ sovereignty to preside over the states for the purpose of governance. Since the McCulloch and Maryland case, over the issue of a national bank, the interpretation paved way for later rulings upholding federal power over state power.

On the other hand state governments retain political power that would be considered typical of a strong federal state. Consider the diversity of laws between the states. Such variation of law in speed limits, doctor assisted suicide, capital punishment, abortion and same sex marriage and drinking age reflect that states still have some autonomy in how they wish for their land to be governed. Additionally state governments, during a period of decentralisation (a feature of the New Federalism movement), have the impetus to make their own decisions; the 2007 Greenhouse gas initiative is an example of this, whereby eight states agreed capping the level of emissions; here one observes states becoming policy laboratories and their policies being adopted by their neighbours. State decisions may also be initiated by the people through the use of propositions (the state level referendums). Consider California’s Proposition 8 which was a ballot proposition for a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the rights of Same-Sex couples to marry. State governments can also decide the day their state holds an election during either Presidential or Congressional elections. Therefore states can exercise their own political power, particularly when power has devolved from the federal government.

Moreover state governments have appeared to be more prepared to challenge federal authority. In August 2012 Obama’s deferred action scheme was undermined by Governor Jan Brewer’s policy, as she claimed that the undocumented immigrants, protected by the programme, allowed to legally stay in the country would not be eligible to apply for driver’s licences in her state. Brewer, after being challenged as being discriminatory, firmly remarked that state governments have the authority to decide who gets drivers licenses rather than the federal government. Arizona also has tighter immigration policies in their state, as two years ago the state legislature passed a law requiring drivers to ‘show their papers’ at traffic stops. These routine checks contrast to the national standard for immigration control. Therefore states do not remain submissive to solely accept when policy contravenes their standards or when it appears to be lacking.

Finally big government is not always a definitive feature of the federal state. Massive state intervention mainly emerges during financial crises consider the 1930s Great Depression and 2008 credit crises, when state governments show their dependency for support. In times of economic success state governments are capable of self-governing. Bill Clinton in the State of the Unions Address stated that the “era of big government is over”. Bill Clinton’s presidency was characterised by general economic success and rarely were his policies imposed on all the states. In fact power devolved to the states for them to conduct a welfare programme to provide Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Therefore not all presidents enact large scale federal government measures to affect all the states.

Also the role of the Supreme Court can develop the relationship between the federal and state government. In some cases Supreme Court rulings may limit the federal government’s exercise of authority. Consider the Lopez verses United States case in 1995 whereby the Gun Free Zones Act was struck down and the federal government use of the commerce clause was limited for the first time since the New Deal. Additionally the Morrison verses USA case in 2000, declared provisions of the Violence against Women Act Unconstitutional, because they exceeded the congressional power of the commerce clause and section 5 of the 14th amendment. More recently the Supreme Court has interpreted Congress’ commerce powers in a more limited sense due to tenure of strict constructionist justices’. Thus it appears that the Supreme Court has taken heed of state sovereignty, and not always is the division of power resting in the federal governments favour.

In conclusion the USA is still a federalist state, despite the dramatic changes that have occurred since the early days of the Constitution because when considering the exercise of federal government power, mainly this in response to dramatic events that require intervention to restore stability, like the collapse of the stock exchange in 2008 and 9/11. Federal government power, in comparison to state government power is exercised far less. State governments share the sovereignty of their national counterparts significantly when there is political and economic stability. Mainly during instability state dependency increases, thus the national government becomes bolder, hence the saying “the federal governments did not create the states, but state governments created the federal government”. And so the divisions of power are not solely in the hands of the federal authority because periods of stability are more common than those of crises.