 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(February 2010) |
Cooperative federalism, also known as marble-cake federalism, is defined as a flexible relationship between the federal and state governments in which both work together on a variety of issues and programs.
In the American federal system, there are limitations on national government's ability to carry out its policies through the executive branch of state governments. For example, in Printz v. United States , 521 U.S. 898 (1997) the Court held that the national government could not directly require state law enforcement officers to conduct background checks under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act legislation. The court explained that prior decisions warned that "this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations." And yet, there are significant advantages in a federal system to obtain state assistance in the local implementation of federal programs. Implementing such programs through national employees would significantly increase the size and intrusiveness of the national government. Moreover, local implementation may assure that these programs are implemented in ways that take local conditions into account.
For this reason, Congress has often avoided adoption of completely nationalized programs by one of two devices. In the first, Congress creates a delivery system for federal programs in which the national government encourages local implementation of a federal program by providing significant matching funds. In this context, the phrase may be found in a number of Supreme Court and lower court federal cases. The most frequent early use of the phrase may be found in a series of cases describing the paradigm for federally sponsored welfare programs such as medical assistance or the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) programs in which a participating state's program is financed largely by the Federal Government, on a matching fund basis, subject to federal mandatory regulations. See for example, King v. Smith and a series of subsequent AFDC cases. More recently, the phrase has been used in connection with other federal programs built on the cooperative federalism model. See California v. U.S. 438 U.S. 645 (1978) (Reclamation Act) and Schaffer v. Weist (Special education). Here, the motivation for State compliance is that absent state compliance with federal conditions, the state loses significant federal funding.
The second method of encouraging states to implement federal programs is described in New York v. United States , 505 U.S. 144 (1992). In this form, the Congress states that it will take over the regulation of an activity at the national level, unless the State itself implements its own program of regulation meeting minimum federal standards. [1] Here, the motivation for State compliance is that absent state regulation, the state loses power over the regulated area entirely. In New York v. United States, the court explained:
"... where Congress has the authority to regulate private activity under the Commerce Clause, we have recognized Congress' power to offer States the choice of regulating that activity according to federal standards or having state law preempted by federal regulation. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Association . See also FERC v. Mississippi. This arrangement, which has been termed 'a program of cooperative federalism,' Hodel, supra, is replicated in numerous federal statutory schemes. These include the Clean Water Act, see Arkansas v. Oklahoma, (Clean Water Act 'anticipates a partnership between the States and the Federal Government, animated by a shared objective'); the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, see Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn. , the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, see Department of Energy v. Ohio, and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, see Kenaitze Indian Tribe v. Alaska."
While the federal system places limits on the ability of the national government to require implementation by a State executive branch, or its local political subdivisions, that limitation does not apply in the same way to State judicial systems. In part, this is because the founders understood that state courts would be courts of general jurisdiction, bound to apply both state and federal law. In part, it is because the State courts adjudicate cases between citizens who are bound to comply with both state and federal law. When the Congress seeks to establish federal legislation which governs the behavior of citizens, the Congress is free to choose among three judicial enforcement paradigms. It may open both federal or state courts to enforcement of that right, by specifically providing concurrent jurisdiction in the federal courts. It may grant exclusive jurisdiction to the federal courts, or it may choose to leave enforcement of that right to civil dispute resolution amongst parties in State court.
We also see the wide-scale use of cooperative federalism in the implementation of federal law criminalizing drug and gun possession. The federal government lacks a police force that can enforce these kinds of crimes; it must rely on state and local police forces. As a result, the federal government has enacted programs such as Project Safe Neighborhoods that encourage cooperation between state and local police forces/district attorneys and federal prosecutors. This kind of cooperation can have problematic effects. As William Partlett writes:
"... cooperative federalism presents new—and largely unexplored—constitutional problems. In particular, unlike the civil regulatory context, cooperation threatens the constitutional rights of individual criminal defendants by allowing executives to circumvent local juries, judges, and laws. Moreover, this cooperation also potentially weakens the ability of states and cities to function as political entities that can hold their law enforcement officers accountable in an area of traditional state police power ..." [2]
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states' rights, by stating that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state.
The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution. The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Indian Commerce Clause.
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded the powers granted to the US Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Along with United States v. Lopez (1995), it was part of a series of Rehnquist Court cases that limited Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause.
Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent to which international legal obligations are incorporated into federal law under the United States Constitution.
An unfunded mandate is a statute or regulation that requires any entity to perform certain actions, with no money provided for fulfilling the requirements. This can be imposed on state or local government, as well as private individuals or organizations. The key distinction is that the statute or regulation is not accompanied by funding to fulfill the requirement
United States environmental law concerns legal standards to protect human health and improve the natural environment of the United States. While subject to criticism at home and abroad on issues of protection, enforcement, and over-regulation, the country remains an important source of environmental legal expertise and experience.
In the United States, federalism is the constitutional division of power between U.S. state governments and the federal government of the United States. Since the founding of the country, and particularly with the end of the American Civil War, power shifted away from the states and toward the national government. The progression of federalism includes dual, cooperative, and new federalism.
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) is the primary federal law that regulates the environmental effects of coal mining in the United States.
Environmental crime is an illegal act which directly harms the environment. These illegal activities involve the environment, wildlife, biodiversity and natural resources. International bodies such as, G7, Interpol, European Union, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, have recognised the following environmental crimes:
Dual federalism, also known as layer-cake federalism or divided sovereignty, is a political arrangement in which power is divided between the federal and state governments in clearly defined terms, with state governments exercising those powers accorded to them without interference from the federal government. Dual federalism is defined in contrast to cooperative federalism, in which federal and state governments collaborate on policy.
Dr. John T. Scholz is the Francis Eppes Distinguished Professor of Political Science and a Courtesy Professor of Law at Florida State University. As the first political scientist to formulate the "regulation game," which was later extended in influential work on responsive regulation by John Braithwaite and Ian Ayres. Scholz is widely regarded as one of the leading political scientists addressing regulatory enforcement.
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, found that the federal government may not require states to “take title” to radioactive waste through the "Take Title" provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, which the Court found to exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Court permitted the federal government to induce shifts in state waste policy through other means.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the United States' primary federal air quality law, intended to reduce and control air pollution nationwide. Initially enacted in 1963 and amended many times since, it is one of the United States' first and most influential modern environmental laws.
Secure Communities is a data-sharing program that relies on coordination between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The program was designed to "check the immigration status of every single person arrested by local police anywhere in the country". As part of the program, fingerprints that are taken upon arrest, which are traditionally forwarded to the FBI, are then also forwarded to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). If these finger prints match the DHS's Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT), then the ICE district office decides whether or not to issue a detainer request which can include requesting that the person be detained for up to 48 hours (I-247D), or a request for ICE to be notified upon their release (I-247N).
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.
There are benefits to leaving environmental regulation both to the federal government to the states.For example, wildlife conservation is much more of a concern for Alaska than for New York. New York, however, has much bigger air and light pollution issues than Alaska.
The Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act requires that all public employers, contractors and subcontractors register and comply with the federal work authorization program operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security to verify new employee work eligibility.
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law. However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution; that is, they must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers, and not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights—of particular interest is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that the federal government has only those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution.
Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that reaffirmed the National Prohibition Act's limitation on the dispensation of alcoholic medicines. The five-to-four decision, written by Justice Louis D. Brandeis, affirmed the dismissal of a suit in which New York City physician Samuel Lambert sought to prevent Edward Yellowley, the acting federal prohibition director, from enforcing the Prohibition Act so as to preclude him from prescribing alcoholic medicines. The decision affirmed the police powers of the individual states, as well as the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause of the United States Constitution, which was cited in upholding the Prohibition Act's limitations as a necessary and proper implementation of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.