• 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)

    To meet the day to needs of the US in ever changing circumstances legislation can be passed to deal with issues that arise. They only need Congressional majority in each house and Presidential approval. If it does not get Presidential approval it can still be passed with a two-thirds majority in both houses.

  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. "Supreme Court Appointments are always controversial" Discuss

    Because of the infrequency of judicial appointments, and the idea that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, this would mean that once again, because of the magnitude of the appointment, the Senate and Executive must ensure that the correct nomination is confirmed into the Senate.

  2. Why did it take so long to ratify the American Constitution?

    They urged that the nation's problems were directly linked to the frail, inadequate Articles of Confederation and that nothing short of the Constitution would enable the American people to preserve their liberty and independence, the fruits of the Revolution. People who opposed the Constitution were known as Anti-Federalists, the title

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

    In addition to this the last time a majority of 2/3rd's was held in either house by a party was in 1964 with Lyndon Johnson who held this proportion in the House of Representatives. This, the largest within the last 75 years.

  2. The power of the President is limited to the power to persuade. Discuss.

    Finally, in a democracy one of the most significant checks will always be the people- strength of public opinion, for example, against the Vietnam War, probably led to Johnson?s decision not to stand for re-election. In an increasingly media-conscious society, the role of the media and pressure groups is also significant.

  1. '9 politicians sitting on a bench.' Critically evaluate this description of the US Supreme ...

    This is evidence that presidents appoint justices based on their judicial philosophy, as well as evidence which supports the statement that the justices are politicians, as they are chosen on their politics as much as their judicial expertise. The senate has the role of confirming Supreme Court nominees.

  2. Is the USA still a federal state?

    Additionally after the 2008 recession the state intervened in terms of economic management; consider the $700 billion ?bail-out? package, thus financially the federal government took a direct role in the workings of the financial system. It is surprising to witness a Republican president to pass measures that characterizing a government

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