When Did Dual Federalism End?


what is the difference between dual federalism and cooperative federalism?

with some examples?

Dual federalism is where the state governments and national government have very distinct and separate responsibilities and powers.

Cooperative is where the lines are blurred and state and national government work together, often times with the national government bullying states by holding the carrot stick of funding over their heads if they don't comply with the federal government.

An example of Dual Federalism would be the various state governments funding and managing health and human services, and education strictly on their own; whereas having the federal government throw some funding at the states, usually with strings attached, and/or enacting certain national HHS and education guidelines, would be an example of Cooperative Federalism. Which is essentially what we have now-a-days, and it leads to a huge bureaucratic nightmare that breeds inefficiency, corruption, and waste. Along with that, it creates this gimme-gimme entitlement mentality from our elected representatives (along with the electorate) where we need to pander to the federal government for funding, and our US senators and congressmen have to bring the federal "bacon" home to fund pet projects at home in order to satisfy the electorate and get reelected. Cooperative Federalism is a broken system that needs to be changed back to Dual Federalism as the Founding Fathers intended it (see the 10th amendment of the US Constitution).

Dual Federalism is a system of government in which?

both the federal and state governments work on the same problems. the federal and state governments work separately in their own spheres of authority. each branch of government carries out its own responsbilities. the United States shares governing authority with the United Nations.

The second option is correct: "The federal and state governments work separately in their own spheres of authority."

State and federal governments are separate but co-equal. Each is sovereign and supreme in their respective sphere. Under this thinking, the federal government has jurisdiction only if the constitution explicitly grants it, leaving a large group of powers to the states. Dual-federalism was very popular in the Taney court from around 1830 to just before the end of the Civil War. As you might imagine, this doctrine explains in part why some states had progressive stances on issues like civil rights and slavery while others did not.

Dual federalism is not completely dead, but cooperative federalism, the idea that the federal government is supreme over the states, has slowly but surely taken over as the predominant interpretation of state and federal powers. This is why, as an example, some people have been arrested by the federal government in states where marijuana use has been permitted by the state. The federal law prohibiting marijuana use is supreme over the state law permitting it.

Cooperative federalism became dominant during the term of?

Franklin D. Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt. Abraham Lincoln. Ronald Reagan.

I'd say Franklin Roosevelt. The New Deal, administered by Roosevelt to help ease the strife of the Great Depression, led to a conflict between Roosevelt and the U.S. Supreme Court, as Roosevelt's plan required vast federal powers. Roosevelt threatened to "pack" the court with new justices that would back his initiatives if the court struck them down, and in the end, Roosevelt won the stand-off.

See my answer to your other question for further explanation of cooperative and dual federalism, and thank me for doing your homework by actually taking in what I have written for you =P

What are examples of events in federalism of states not being able to resist national government power?

events that occurred after the end of dual federalism in 1860

Basically, any power the Constitution says the federal government (generally speaking Congress) has is federalism. However, states can resist this since they are part of the ratification process. What you might be referring to is the federal government being allowed to "reinterpret" the constitution through the Judicial Branch treating the Constitution as a "living document". The states are given no say in this and their only recourse is legal, leading to the SAME Supreme Court that made the ruling that they are now reacting to in the first place. The deck is stacked against them.

States lost their direct representation when the 17th amendment was passed that made Senators elected directly by the people of a state instead of the state determining how they are picked. This made it harder to "resist" legislation.

Obamacare and it's effect on state Medicare expenses is legislation that states don't like but have had a hard time fighting. Some states are also suing to gain control of their land that is owned by the federal government. The states want to drill for oil. The Obama Administration is not open to expanding on this.

how does federalism guard against tyranny?

It leaves many powers to the states. Thus, if you find too much tyranny in one state, you can move to another.

Of course, one man's tyranny is another man's enlightened government, so your mileage may vary.

The founders were at least as concerned with so-called "tyranny of the masses" which federalism doesn't really address; in fact federalism leaves each state free to implement its own particular form of tyranny of the masses.
.

More Questions