Federalism and the Shifting Balance of Power in the United States

This essay delves into the complexities of federalism in the United States, examining the evolving relationship between the federal and state governments. It highlights the historical shift towards national supremacy, while also acknowledging recent trends suggesting a potential rebalancing of power. The essay explores the division among Americans regarding the appropriate allocation of powers, using examples like the varying legal drinking ages across states. It further discusses how the federal government influences state policies through grants and incentives, effectively nationalizing goals in areas such as education and healthcare. The essay analyzes tools used by the federal government to enforce adherence to federal measures, including the Highway Trust Fund and conditional funding grants, while also exploring how states can reject federal initiatives. It concludes by examining how the federal system limits policy choices made by states like Texas, which has historically favored limited government and local control. References from various scholars are included to support the arguments presented.

Running head: FEDERALISM 1
Federalism
Name:
Institution:
Date:

FEDERALISM 2
Federalism
The federal-state relation has shifted more and more towards national supremacy for almost 200
years now. Certain enumerated powers are delegated to the federal government, while all other
powers which are not prohibited by the constitution are reserved to the states. Over the past 20
years, some observers believe that the balance of power is tilting back towards the states. In
recent years, the powers of the federal government were limited in favor of the states by the
Supreme Court(Schleicher, 2017). Today, there is division amongst the Americans about which
laws should be federal and which to reserve for the states. For instance, there is no national
drinking age, therefore; some states' legal drinking age is 18 years while others it is 21 years (Xi,
2017). For the last 30 years, most of the country's public policy innovations such as novel
education reform, inventive health policy, and energy legislation have been initiated by the state
governments. More than 90% of K – 12 education funding is provided by the state and local
government while the federal government through its smaller funding has an effective way of
nationalizing goals (Vile, 2013).
U.S. Federal government influence over the states
States have been turned by the federal governments into the instruments of federal policy. It
influences directly what happens in the states as it is an agent which distributes resources and
funds in form of grants to the states. The federal government uses grants as incentives to make
the state's laws what they want since they can't make the states change their laws. Federal
government accomplishes things all Americans want, programs like Medicaid, Clean Air Act,
federal highway system and Common Core in the short run (Baasch, 2016). But these programs
turn states often against their will into mere federal government field offices creating a host of

FEDERALISM 3
structural problems. Federal officials, often behind the scenes, exert enormous influence over
state regulators and budgets.
Tools to utilize in enforcing adherence to federal measures.
The federal government has means to put pressure on the states since it can't force them to
comply with its whims.
Highway Trust Fund. This money has acted in the past as the federals government's muscle in
law enforcement at the state level. If it were to lose the highway trust fund, it would lose a
powerful tool to keep the states in compliance with the national standards. Such as drinking age,
speed limits, texting while driving and motorcycle helm (Schleicher, 2017).
Conditional funding grants. Federal funds are available to states provided that they comply with
certain conditions. It benefits the state and federal officials alike. This is a popular policy tool
since; there is efficiency and increased popular acceptance of the policies by the states opposed
to wide-reaching federal bureaucracy for the benefit of the citizens.
Fund cutting-off/state spending. The federal government can cut-off the funds to states which are
not complying with the terms of a grant statue (Baasch, 2016). This is a blunt tool that hurts the
intended beneficiary.
How the states can reject federal initiatives
Coercing federal officers to negotiate in order to grant additional financing, extensions, waivers
and other approaches to welcome diverse priorities in every state.
Enforcing federal motivation programs in the states. States such as Louisiana, Alaska and South
Carolina opted out of the enhanced unemployment insurance programs offered under the
recovery Act (Xi, 2017). They acted on long-term implications on the state businesses for
unemployment insurance taxes once the federal recovery funds expired.

FEDERALISM 4
States not creating their own state health insurance exchanges where an uninsured citizen or
business could purchase insurance with a federal subsidy; forcing the federal government to do it
on their behave. States strive for unfinanced federal mandates through accusing the government
for tenth amendments violation. They publicize unfinanced federal mandates costs by making
congressmen publicly responsible.
The state can reject the initiative if the issue is to be handled by the state at the local level, but
the federal government wants to be largely involved. For instance setting of the National
Education Standard to all schools in the United State.
If the initiative willincur a large amount to maintain and implement,it means that the citizens will
be overtaxed. This will not benefitthecitizens of the memberstates rather it will benefit the
bureaucratstherefore it can be rejected
Ways through which the federal system limits policy choices made by Texas
The national government is declared supreme by the U.S constitution within areas of its
enumerated powers and reserves to the states. The powers of the government are defined and
limited by the constitution. The U.S and all the states constitution grant some powers, deny
others and deploy institutional features such as check and balances, separation of powers and
bicameralism to restrain and limit government. Texas has favored limited government, minimal
taxes, and local control always. Its exposure to military defeat, occupation by Union forces and
the centralized government has deepened their need to limited government (Baasch, 2016). Till
date, Texans are wary of powerful government, high taxes and intrusions upon their individual
liberties and rights.

FEDERALISM 5
References
Abramowitz, A. I. (2008). Is Polarization a Myth? The Journal of Politics, , 542–555.
Baasch, R. (2016). Congress and the Reconstruction of Foreign Affairs Federalism. Michigan
Law Review , 107.
Schleicher, D. (2017). Federalism and State Democracy. Texas Law Review , 820.
Vile, M. J. (2013). Federalism in the United States, Canada and Australia. London: H.M.
Stationery Off.
Xi, J. Y. (2017). Refugee Resettlement Federalism. Stanford Law Review , 1235.
Vicki C. Jackson, S. L. (2013). Federalism: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution:
A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.