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

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

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Page 1 of 2 Outline how and why federalism has changed since the 1960s. In the 1960s, the government had a creative federalist approach. The aim of Lynden Johnson's Great society programmes was to try to eliminate poverty within the US. This in turn meant large government grants were given to states, which was seen to increase the level of interference from the federal government. Johnson also provided categorical grants instead of block grants, which meant the states had much less control over their spending. He also supplied a lot of federal aid, increasing the dependence of states on the federal government. It wasn't just the executive increasing the role; the judiciary were also pushing the government this way, with cases such as Gideon vs. Wainwright and Miranda vs. Arizona. Since the 1960's the some have stated that New Federalism has been the main objective of the executive and judiciary due to the previous creative federalism. From the 1970s there was an ideological shift, with the rejection of liberal values from the 1960s. President Nixon started the development of the idea that the federal government was too powerful, and that the states needed to have more power of their local rights. ...read more.

Middle

The limits on his policies also showed that Dual federalism was too impractical to actually implement. During Bush Snr's presidency, there was a lot more emphasis on foreign policy which required the increase in size of the federal government. Also during his presidency, the Supreme Court started to make decisions that leant towards state rights; the political layout of the courts took longer to change than the executive due to life tenure of the justices meaning a President could just just swap them for more sympathetic judges. The atmosphere mainly created by Reagan of dual federalism was accelerated through Clinton's presidency. Like President Carter and Bush Snr, Clinton was previously a governor, and believed that governors should have freedom to decide what was in the best interests of their states. Many Supreme Court decisions made in these years also started to give more rights to the states. For example in New York vs. Unites states, the court ruled that the federal government could not instruct a state what to do with radioactive material. Also in Pritz vs. United States, the court ruled that Congress could not instruct states to carry out background checks on people buying handguns, as it was a matter for the states to decide rather than for the federal government. ...read more.

Conclusion

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. The controversial issue of Medicare has also been another example of huge federal spending. In conclusion, the United States seems to vary in its size of federal government. For many Americans the ideal solution may never be reached, as it was to close to the ideas of the articles of confederation and was proven to have not worked. In the view of these stated rights idealists, Washington DC's government has far too much power, and that their constitutional safe guards against the concentration of power in central government are inadequate. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that even committed states rights activists such as Ronald Reagan, can only slow down the process of centralisation of power in the modern era, rather than reverse it. However from the opposite view point the centralisation hasn't gone far enough, with the argument that there is too much disparity between the rights given in each state. The debate of the US federal system is an ongoing debate, and many compromises will have to be met, as there is no clear answer with a large variety of political viewpoints across the United States of America. ...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

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

5 star(s)

Overall this is a very good essay. Although the essay is chronological, which is often not the best way to answer questions, here, the way the question is worded, leads towards an answer of this nature. To improve, more is needed at the start about what federalism actually is and why it is controversial. More theories as to why federalism has changed could also be included.

Marked by teacher Jessica Jung 19/02/2012

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

    "The Main Difference Between the UK And US Constitution Is That One Is Flexible ...

    4 star(s)

    and deem them unconstitutional. They now are in effect shaping the constitution by deeming certain things unconstitutional. They also have the power of constitutional interpretation which allows them to apply the constitution to present days situations. These interpretations can have huge effect across the whole of the US.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    The ideology of the Democrats is liberal whilst that of the Republicans is Conservative. ...

    4 star(s)

    From this we can see that the Democrats, certainly in congressional policy, pass liberal legislation. Similarly, the Republicans have shown much in recent years to call themselves a conservative party. The last Republican president, G.W.Bush, extended tax cuts to millions of high and middle earners.

  1. Fareed Zakarias Restoring the American Dream examines where America stands to today in the ...

    Dambisa Moyo, International Economist, Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, and Dennis Crowley, Co-Founder, Foursquare discuss why is it that America seems less dominant in so many areas and why the United States is falling behind in other countries.

  2. "The conflicting interests of the Great Powers made its failure inevitable." Discuss this verdict ...

    Castlereagh also wished to reduce Metternich's influence over Europe. Consequently, Canning sent troops to Lisbon in support of the Constitutionalists and rejected Metternich's call for a five-power conference to discuss Portugal. From this, we see that Britain was committed to act by herself in order to protect her interests, and

  1. Do the strengths of the US constitution outweigh its weaknesses?

    would argue, in particular, pressure groups that support this cause along the line of equality, that this case has so far been the biggest step towards equality than anything else to date. This showing the power of the Judiciary and in particular their interpretations on the constitution.

  2. "Compare the successes and failures of Castlereagh and Canning's Foreign Policies"

    Next, Castlereagh was concerned with Territorial settlement in Europe. The gains eventually were moderate and balanced with Britain keeping the essential naval bases, such as Salon (Sri Lanka), Gibraltar and the Cape Colony and his collaboration with Metternich helped in resisting Prussia's claim for the whole of Saxony.

  1. Does public participation in the presidential nomination process advance or hinder democracy?

    This selection process being extremely long creates the danger of public disengagement. The huge sums of money that are being raised scares of the smaller candidates who would struggle to make this money even before the primaries have begun; in 2000 where Al Gore raised $33.8 million and received $15.3

  2. '9 politicians sitting on a bench.' Critically evaluate this description of the US Supreme ...

    philosophy, as he was expected to be a strict constructionist, but this backfired. Bill Clinton nominated 2 justices during his presidency, both of whom reflected his own political philosophy, in that their stances in Supreme Court decisions are consistently liberal.

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