Gayblack Canadian Man

Foreign Policy Analysis
Federalism: Crash Course Government and Politics #4

Federalism: Crash Course Government and Politics #4


Hi, I’m Craig and this is Crash Course Government
and Politics. And today we’re going to talk about a fundamental concept to American government:
federalism. Sorry. I’m not sorry. You’re not even endangered
anymore. Federalism is a little confusing because
it includes the word, “federal,” as in federal government, which is what we use to describe
the government of the United States as a whole. Which is kind of the opposite of what we mean
when we say federalism. Confused? Google it. This video will probably come up. And then just
watch this video. Or, just continue watching this video. [Theme Music] So what is federalism? Most simply, it’s the
idea that in the US, governmental power is divided between the government of the United
States and the government of the individual states. The government of the US, the national
government, is sometimes called the federal government, while the state governments are
just called the state governments. This is because technically the US can be considered
a federation of states. But this means different things to different people. For instance,
federation of states means ham sandwich to me. I’ll have one federation of states, please,
with a side of tater tots. Thank you. I’m kind of dumb. In the federal system, the national government
takes care of some things, like for example, war with other countries and delivering the
mail, while the state government takes care of other things like driver’s license, hunter’s
licenses, barber’s licences, dentist’s licenses, license to kill – nah, that’s James Bond.
And that’s in England. And I hope states don’t do that. Pretty simple right? Maybe not. For one thing,
there are some aspects of government that are handled by both the state and national
government. Taxes, American’s favorite government activity, are an example. There are federal
taxes and state taxes. But it gets even more complicated because there are different types
of federalism depending on what period in American history you’re talking about. UGH!
Stan! Why is history so confusing!? UGH! Stan, are you going to tell me? Can you talk Stan? Basically though, there are two main types
of federalism -dual federalism, which has nothing to do Aaron Burr, usually refers to
the period of American history that stretches from the founding of our great nation until
the New Deal, and cooperative federalism, which has been the rule since the 1930s. Let’s
start with an easy one and start with dual federalism in the Thought Bubble. From 1788 until 1937, the US basically lived
under a regime of dual federalism, which meant government power was strictly divided
between the state and national governments. Notice that I didn’t say separated, because
I don’t want you to confuse federalism with the separation of powers. DON’T DO IT! With
dual federalism, there are some things that only the federal government does and some
things that only the state governments do. This is sometimes called jurisdiction. The national government had jurisdiction over
internal improvements like interstate roads and canals, subsidies to the states, and tariffs,
which are taxes on imports and thus falls under the general heading of foreign policy.
The national government also owns public lands and regulates patents which need to be national
for them to offer protection for inventors in all the states. And because you want a
silver dollar in Delaware to be worth the same as a silver dollar in Georgia, the national
government also controls currency. The state government had control over property
laws, inheritance laws, commercial laws, banking laws, corporate laws, insurance, family law,
which means marriage and divorce, morality — stuff like public nudeness and drinking
– which keeps me in check — public health, education, criminal laws including determining
what is a crime and how crimes are prosecuted, land use, which includes water and mineral
rights, elections, local government, and licensing of professions and occupations, basically
what is required to drive a car, or open a bar or become a barber or become James Bond. So, under dual federalism, the state government
has jurisdiction over a lot more than the national government. These powers over health,
safety and morality are sometimes called police power and usually belong to the states. Because
of the strict division between the two types of government, dual federalism is sometimes
called layer cake federalism. Delicious. And it’s consistent with the tradition of limited
government that many Americans hold dear. Thanks Thought Bubble. Now, some of you might be wondering, Craig,
where does the national government get the power to do anything that has do to with states?
Yeah, well off the top of my head, the US Constitution in Article I, Section 8 Clause
3 gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several
states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is what is known as the Commerce Clause, and
the way that it’s been interpreted is the basis of dual federalism and cooperative federalism. For most of the 19th century, the Supreme
Court has decided that almost any attempt by any government, federal or state, to regulate
state economic activity would violate the Commerce Clause. This basically meant that
there was very little regulation of business at all. FREEDOOOOOOMM! And this is how things stood, with the US following
a system of dual federalism, with very little government regulation and the national government
not doing much other than going to war or buying and conquering enormous amounts of
territories and delivering the mail. Then the Great Depression happened, and Franklin
Roosevelt and Congress enacted the New Deal, which changed the role of the federal government
in a big way. The New Deal brought us cooperative federalism, where the national government
encourages states and localities to pursue nationally-defined goals. The main way that
the federal government does this is through dollar-dollar bills, y’all. Money is what
I’m saying. Stan, can I make it rain? Yeah? All right, I’m doing it. I happen to have cash in my
hand now. Oh yeah, take my federal money, states. Regulating ya. Regulator. This money that the federal government gives
to the states is called a grant-in-aid. Grants-in-aid can work like a carrot encouraging a state
to adopt a certain policy or work like a stick when the federal government withholds funds
if a state doesn’t do what the national government wants. Grants-in-aid are usually called categorical,
because they’re given to states for a particular purpose like transportation or education or
alleviating poverty. There are 2 types of categorical grants-in-aid:
formula grants and project grants. Under a formula grant, a state gets aid in a certain
amount of money based on a mathematical formula; the best example of this is the old way welfare
was given in the US under the program called Aid to Families with Dependent Children. AFDC.
States got a certain amount of money for every person who was classified as “poor.” The more
poor people a state had, the more money it got. Project grants require states to submit
proposals in order to receive aid. The states compete for a limited pool of resources. Nowadays,
project grants are more common than formula grants, but neither is as popular as block
grants, which the government gives out Lego Blocks and then you build stuff with Legos.
It’s a good time. No no, the national government gives a state
a huge chunk of money for something big, like infrastructure, which is made with concrete
and steel, and not Legos, and the state is allowed to decide how to spend the money.
The basic type of cooperative federalism is the carrot stick type which is sometimes called
marble cake federalism because it mixes up the state and federal governments in ways
that makes it impossible to separate the two. Federalism, it’s such a culinary delight. The key to it is, you guessed it — dollar
dollar bills y’all. Money. But there’s another aspect of cooperative federalism that’s really
not so cooperative, and that’s regulated federalism. Under regulated federalism, the national governments
sets up regulations and rules that the states must follow. Some examples of these rules,
also called mandates, are EPA regulations, civil rights standards, and the rules set
up by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sometimes the government gives the states
money to implement the rules, but sometimes it doesn’t and they must comply anyways. That’s
called an unfunded mandate. Or as I like to call it, an un-fun mandate. Because no money,
no fun. A good example of example of this is OSHA regulations that employers have to
follow. States don’t like these, and Congress tried
to do something about them with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act or UMRA, but it hasn’t
really worked. In the early 21st century, Americans are basically living under a system
of cooperative federalism with some areas of activity that are heavily regulated. This
is a stretch from the original idea that federalism will keep the national government small and
have most government functions belong to the states. If you follow American politics, and I know
you do, this small government ideal should sound familiar because it’s the bedrock principle
of many conservatives and libertarians in the US. As conservatives made many political
inroads during the 1970s, a new concept of federalism, which was kind of an old concept
of federalism, became popular. It was called, SURPRISE, New Federalism, and it was popularized
by Presidents Nixon and Reagan. Just to be clear, it’s called New Federalism
not Surprise New Federalism. New Federalism basically means giving more power to the states,
and this has been done in three ways. First, block grants allow states discretion to decide
what to do with federal money, and what’s a better way to express your power than spending
money? Or not spending money as the case may be. Another form of New Federalism is devolution,
which is the process of giving state and local governments the power to enforce regulations,
devolving power from the national to the state level. Finally, some courts have picked up
the cause of New Federalism through cases based on the 10th Amendment, which states
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The idea that some
powers, like those police powers I talked about before, are reserved by the states, have been used
to put something of a brake on the Commerce Clause. So as you can see, where we are with federalism
today is kind of complicated. Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton seem to favor
New Federalism and block grants. But George W. Bush seemed to push back towards regulated
federalism with laws like No Child Left Behind and the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security. It’s pretty safe to say that we’re going to continue to live under a regime of
cooperative federalism, with a healthy dose of regulation thrown in. But many Americans
feel that the national government is too big and expensive and not what the framers wanted. If history is any guide, a system of dual
federalism with most of the government in the hands of the states is probably not going
to happen. For some reason, it’s really difficult to convince institutions to give up powers
once they’ve got them. I’m never giving up this power. Thanks for watching, I’ll see
you next week. Crash Course Government and Politics is produced
in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support for Crash Course US Government comes from
Voqal. Voqal supports non-profits that use technology and media to advance social equity.
Learn more about their mission and initiatives at Voqal.org. Crash Course is made with the
help of these nice people. Thanks for watching. You didn’t help make this video at all, did
you? No. But you did get people to keep watching until the end because you’re an adorable dog.

100 comments on “Federalism: Crash Course Government and Politics #4

  1. Appreciate the production value for helping us all to learn better, Crash Course Team! Content is superb, fun, and informative. That's most important.

    Haven't seen Craig's newer videos to see how he's evolved and grown into as a his own narrator/orator, but these first few videos I'm not a huge fan of his attempts at humor he tries to interject.

    Sometimes it comes off as an attempt to be like the green brothers and other times it just seems like he's trying to hard (like his "making it rain" bit and his "wheezy" bits). I think kids will see through this pretty fast. I hope by now he just goes with what he's most comfortable with and being more himself. It's important to bring this up because these bits sometimes really distract me from the content I'm here to listen to and learn from.

  2. No exam to study for, just wanna be a better, informed citizen. Also, Craig is my favorite CC host… hands down. DUDE IS HILARIOUS!

  3. Franklin Roosevelt had executive power…but the New Deal was legislative act which is ultra vires on the part of Franklin Roosevelt.

  4. Please subscribe to my channel! I post everything about politics I’ve just started so i appreciate any support.

  5. Looking for a proper video on Federalism in India and stumbled upon this… Hope someone makes a video on Indian Federalism in an interesting way to learn same as this one..

  6. i always get distracted when i stare into his eyes which are reading off of a script which then makes me forget what he's even saying

  7. First, I love Craig. Second, I'm watching this video because I have some terrible feelings about the Federal government of the United States

  8. transition from the Articles of Confederation to the United States Constitution wasn't a seamless one, and fixing the problems of the Articles of Confederation required a series of lengthy debates both during and after the convention. But one thing was certain, something had to be changed. Fifty-five Delegates met at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to determine how best to adjust the existing document.

    The Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation were:

    Each state only had one vote in Congress, regardless of size
    Congress didn't have the power to tax, or to regulate foreign and interstate commerce
    There was no executive branch to enforce any acts passed by Congress
    There was no national court system
    Amendments to the Articles of Confederation required a unanimous vote
    Laws required a 9/13 majority to pass in Congress
    These weaknesses introduced a great deal of interstate conflict, something that delegates, through the drafting of the Constitution, tried their best to solve. However, under the Articles, when the Founding Fathers signed the Constitution in 1787, it needed the ratification from nine states before it could go into effect. This was not easy. And the push for ratification brought on a seemingly endless barrage of documents, articles, and pamphlets both supporting and opposing it.

    There were two sides to the Great Debate: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists wanted to ratify the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists did not. One of the major issues these two parties debated concerned the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. The Federalists felt that this addition wasn't necessary, because they believed that the Constitution as it stood only limited the government not the people. The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government too much power, and without a Bill of Rights the people would be at risk of oppression.

    The Federalists

    James Madison, fourth president of the United States
    James Madison, Father of the Constitution
    Led by Alexander Hamilton, albeit secretly at first, the Federalists were the first political party of the United States. They supported the Constitution, and attempted to convince the States to ratify the document. Hamilton, along with John Jay and James Madison, anonymously published a series of essays known as the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius."

    Both Hamilton and Madison argued that the Constitution didn't need a Bill of Rights, that it would create a "parchment barrier" that limited the rights of the people, as opposed to protecting them. However, they eventually made the concession and announced a willingness to take up the matter of the series of amendments which would become the Bill of Rights. Without this compromise, the Constitution may never have been ratified by the States.

    Surprisingly enough, it was Federalist James Madison who eventually presented the Bill of Rights to Congress despite his former stance on the issue.

    The Anti-Federalists

    Anti-federalist Patrick Henry
    Patrick Henry, Opposer of the Constitution
    In the ratification debate, the Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution. They complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights. The Anti-Federalists weren't exactly a united group, but instead involved many elements.

    One faction opposed the Constitution because they thought stronger government threatened the sovereignty of the states. Others argued that a new centralized government would have all the characteristics of the despotism of Great Britain they had fought so hard to remove themselves from. And still others feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties.

    During the push for ratification, many of the articles in opposition were written under pseudonyms, such as "Brutus," " Centinel", and "Federal Farmer," but some famous revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry came out publicly against the Constitution.

    Although the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in the prevention of the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts were responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of Rights.

    Reaction in the States

    In Rhode Island resistance against the Constitution was so strong that civil war almost broke out on July 4, 1788, when anti-federalist members of the Country Party led by Judge William West marched into Providence with over 1,000 armed protesters.

    Although not all of the States underwent the extreme of the Rhode Island case, many of them had a bit of difficulty deciding which side they were on. This uncertainty played a major role in the ratification convention in Massachusetts. Finally, after long debate, a compromise (the "Massachusetts Compromise") was reached. Massachusetts would ratify the Constitution, and in the ratifying document strongly suggest that the Constitution be amended with a bill of rights.

    Four of the next five states to ratify, including New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York, included similar language in their ratification instruments. As a result, after the Constitution was enacted, Congress sent a set of twelve amendments to the states. Ten of these amendments were immediately ratified into the Bill of Rights.

  9. transition from the Articles of Confederation to the United States Constitution wasn't a seamless one, and fixing the problems of the Articles of Confederation required a series of lengthy debates both during and after the convention. But one thing was certain, something had to be changed. Fifty-five Delegates met at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to determine how best to adjust the existing document.

    The Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation were:

    Each state only had one vote in Congress, regardless of size
    Congress didn't have the power to tax, or to regulate foreign and interstate commerce
    There was no executive branch to enforce any acts passed by Congress
    There was no national court system
    Amendments to the Articles of Confederation required a unanimous vote
    Laws required a 9/13 majority to pass in Congress
    These weaknesses introduced a great deal of interstate conflict, something that delegates, through the drafting of the Constitution, tried their best to solve. However, under the Articles, when the Founding Fathers signed the Constitution in 1787, it needed the ratification from nine states before it could go into effect. This was not easy. And the push for ratification brought on a seemingly endless barrage of documents, articles, and pamphlets both supporting and opposing it.

    There were two sides to the Great Debate: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists wanted to ratify the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists did not. One of the major issues these two parties debated concerned the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. The Federalists felt that this addition wasn't necessary, because they believed that the Constitution as it stood only limited the government not the people. The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government too much power, and without a Bill of Rights the people would be at risk of oppression.

    The Federalists

    James Madison, fourth president of the United States
    James Madison, Father of the Constitution
    Led by Alexander Hamilton, albeit secretly at first, the Federalists were the first political party of the United States. They supported the Constitution, and attempted to convince the States to ratify the document. Hamilton, along with John Jay and James Madison, anonymously published a series of essays known as the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius."

    Both Hamilton and Madison argued that the Constitution didn't need a Bill of Rights, that it would create a "parchment barrier" that limited the rights of the people, as opposed to protecting them. However, they eventually made the concession and announced a willingness to take up the matter of the series of amendments which would become the Bill of Rights. Without this compromise, the Constitution may never have been ratified by the States.

    Surprisingly enough, it was Federalist James Madison who eventually presented the Bill of Rights to Congress despite his former stance on the issue.

    The Anti-Federalists

    Anti-federalist Patrick Henry
    Patrick Henry, Opposer of the Constitution
    In the ratification debate, the Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution. They complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights. The Anti-Federalists weren't exactly a united group, but instead involved many elements.

    One faction opposed the Constitution because they thought stronger government threatened the sovereignty of the states. Others argued that a new centralized government would have all the characteristics of the despotism of Great Britain they had fought so hard to remove themselves from. And still others feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties.

    During the push for ratification, many of the articles in opposition were written under pseudonyms, such as "Brutus," " Centinel", and "Federal Farmer," but some famous revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry came out publicly against the Constitution.

    Although the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in the prevention of the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts were responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of Rights.

    Reaction in the States

    In Rhode Island resistance against the Constitution was so strong that civil war almost broke out on July 4, 1788, when anti-federalist members of the Country Party led by Judge William West marched into Providence with over 1,000 armed protesters.

    Although not all of the States underwent the extreme of the Rhode Island case, many of them had a bit of difficulty deciding which side they were on. This uncertainty played a major role in the ratification convention in Massachusetts. Finally, after long debate, a compromise (the "Massachusetts Compromise") was reached. Massachusetts would ratify the Constitution, and in the ratifying document strongly suggest that the Constitution be amended with a bill of rights.

    Four of the next five states to ratify, including New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York, included similar language in their ratification instruments. As a result, after the Constitution was enacted, Congress sent a set of twelve amendments to the states. Ten of these amendments were immediately ratified into the Bill of Rights.

  10. ok so when the new deal was proposed, it came along with business regulations such as drinking age?

  11. thanks so much Craig, your videos really help grasp the concept of federalism. I deal with federalism in my workplace, so i'm glad to know about dual federalism, regulated federalism and cooperative federalism. But I don't have a eagle to knock off my desk. haha, thanks so much! Dave

  12. BRO YOU ARE THE REASON I WILL PASS MY POLITICS COURSE IN UNI…I FRICKEN LOVE YOU!! GOD BLESS YOUR PRETTY LIL HEART YEAH

  13. Craig should be careful of what he says. I dont know nothing about the topic and I dont sure if he is actually being sarcastic or serious lmaaooo

  14. Texas does not care about the people in Texas. As an example, the Railroad Commission (for some reason) is in charge of regulating fracking in the state of Texas. Unfortunately the Railroad Commission does not even keep track of how many fracking wells there are in Texas. If you're poor in Texas you have no access to Medicare. You can pretty much crawl off in a corner and die for all they care. I really don't want any more power to be given to the state than they already have.

  15. In the 1950s, wasn't there a Court ruling that established a "super elastic clause" which said all commerce is interstate commerce because you growing oranges on your private property meant you weren't buying them from another state?

  16. Why would you punch the eagle. In my opinion it's anti American and not very cool funny . Your videos would be better with out so much nonsense and annoying humar . Sure Sometimes it's good but not in the middle of an important point man. It's great and thank you, I think it would resonate more with people if you didn't interrupt, we're trying to follow , save the joke for after the point not in the middle. Anyways it's cool but dude not everyone is so schooled on this like your self, so it doesn't help when you cut us off , it's annoying. I'm here to learn not to laugh.

  17. Could be a couple minutes shorter with a little less goofiness. Like fun is good, but too much is detracting.

  18. Dual federalism was the intent of this country. The federal govt is to be as small and involved as little as possible in state affairs.

  19. Great job Craig! Why do people get so uptight about his silliness? History doesn't have to be a boring monotone discussion. Teachers/future teachers- let your personality and authenticity shine through- your kids will appreciate it.

  20. Hes not objective, i don't like when someone think people are stupid and the only way for them to be interest in politics is by making jokes and try to be funny

  21. As always Im conflicted about Federalism. I hate the mishmash of conflicting law. I love the ability to do most things our way for example in Massachusetts we have ensured everyone had health insurance for a while now

  22. I'm reading this as an assignment now. I have audio processing issues and have tried writing notes from it several times. It's such a good video too! Is there a way I can get the script for this video so that I can read it?

  23. I wish you had tested an episode on an audience before launching this series. I appreciate all the work and good intent those who created this may have had – but seriously? – the comedic voices and accents make the content sooooo hard to follow and illegible that it's honestly a deal breaker for me. I'm out, headed elsewhere, I really wanted this to work but who has the time to play something over and over again because it's legibility is so compromised by unnecessary ornamentation? Frustrated but understand you all had great intentions. Next time bring on some advisors to review content first please, then I'll come back and give you all great applause for your work.

  24. If that's the case assuming that each state has OWN LAW what if government of the US compose of 50 STATE. the law is contrary to state law… Higharchy right??? because they are under the united state… I there for conclude there is no absolute state law unless otherwise it is not contradict to the US constitution. Good thing this current situation THEY CAN HOLD socio politics and socio economics… Spotted by the EYE the remedy is SUPPRESSION ACT OF AGGRESSION BY MEANS OF REVOLUTIONARY… BUT ITS WRONG… HUMAN RIGHTS IS THE ANSWER RESPECT FIRST SO THAT THE YOUTH WILL BE ENTHUSIAST TO SOLVE REGARDLESS OF ANY KIND OF GOVERNMENT BY MEANS OF PEACEFUL PROCESS… NO FEAR HERE WHY SHOULD EYE…

  25. America: 50 different country's (each broken further down into county's and towns) all with different laws, values and ethics with one currency. That's basically Federalism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *