US 30 MARKERS
THE CONSTITUTION
Evaluate the extent to which states are dominated by federal government
Intro:
The US constitution protects state’s rights, but there is debate about how effectively it achieves this today
Federal encroachment began in the cooperative federalism period, but it would be incorrect to think that the new federalism era has seen a
return of power to the states
While it is true that the states have considerable autonomy of making their own laws, the argument that the federal gov continues to encroach
these powers is compelling
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3
Agreement: Agreement: Agreement:
States are not dominated by federal During National Crisis or disasters, state The SC has made rulings in favour of the
government because laws vary across the governors act in the best interest of state
states their states E.g. United States v Texas 2016 saw the SC
Criminal punishment for instance is Covid19- demonstrated the power of strike down Obama’s use of an executive
something which states are able to make the tenth amendment by which any order to implement his immigration reform
decisions on – the death penalty is legal in power not explicitly granted to the programme, ruling it to be unconstitutional
29 states and has been abolished in 21 federal government by the Constitution due to the cost to the states
Taxes – Taxation can also be set at state is left to the states or the people Obama’s healthcare reforms also had
level. There are huge differences in the 32 state governors issued their own implications for the federal-state
types of tax and 7 states have 0% taxation state of emergency before the national relationship – states ha to participate in the
while California has 13% taxation state of emergency issued by Trump on expansion for the Medicaid programme or
Legal status of marijuana – 11 states have 13 March 2020 lose their federal funding for Medicaid – a
legalised the recreational use of cannabis Some states were extremely quick to act number of states sued arguing it was a
and is it legal for medicinal use in 33 with Ohio governor Mike DeWine being violation of the principles of federalism and
the first to call for a state-wide closure in National Federation of Independent
Disagreement: of schools Business v Sebelius 2012, the SC agreed and
There have been cases in which federal Thus, it can be argued that states struck down Medicaid provision law
government has encroached numerous dominate in terms of national crisis,
state issues backed up by the 10th amendment Disagreement:
E.g. Education lies with the state, however, Although the SC case of National Federation
The No Child Left Behind Act, signed into Disagreement: of Independent Business v Sebelius 2012
law by Bush in 200, laid out a new mandate While state governors have struck down the Medicaid provision in the
that states should test children annually considerable autonomy in the logistics law, it nonetheless upheld the Affordable
Homeland security and national defence – of dealing with a natural disaster in their Care Act, leaving the federal government
in terms of national crisis, such as 9/11, state, they nonetheless depend on with significant control over healthcare
rather than individual states and localities federal government and the Federal While the ruling of the case meant that
formulating their own strategies, Homeland Emergency Management Agency states could not be compelled to expand
Security directed both states and cities on E.g. The federal gov responded to Medicaid, all but 14 states have now
how to provide protection against potential Hurricane Katrina in 2005 with approx. expanded the programme and Medicaid
terrorist attacks $120 billion of economic relief aid enrolment increased by 34% between 2013
In terms of national crisis, it is evident that Covid has also seen the gov actively and 2019
federal government are able to encroach involved with the CARES act 2020 being
state autonomy a $2.2. trillion economic relief package Overall
Thus, although it may be that the SC is
Overall: Overall prone to rule in favour of the states, this
States do have their own provisions for Despite states having a considerable case has shown that the federal
major issues, however, in times of national amount of power when it comes to government remains dominant over the
crisis, it is clear that Federal government dealing with national crisis, the federal states, especially in terms of healthcare
will remain dominant government also plays a huge role in
issues, and arguable remains dominant
over the states
, Evaluate the extent to which the US constitution protects state power
Intro:
The US constitution fully protects state power – the constitution underlines in the 10 th amendment that any powers not given to congress must
be a state power thus demonstrating that congress’ power is not given to federal gov must be a state power, this demonstrating that federal
power is diminished in comparison to the states
The amendment process further protects the states – ¾ of the states have to agree
Although, some may argue that both the necessary and proper clause and the interstate commerce clause shows how the constitution does not
protect state power, ultimately, those powers are not enumerated but are merely implied powers and cannot be used to justify that the
constitution does not protect state power
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3
Agreement: Agreement: Agreement:
The constitution protects state power The Constitution significantly protects The constitution strongly protects state’s
through the amendment process which is state power as federalism continues to power as the 10th amendment has been
outlines in article 5 of the constitution giver state governments a significant upheld
To pass an amendment, ¾ of the states degree of control The 10th amendment states that powers not
have to agree and ratify the proposal States are able to control large aspects, reserved for the federal gov should be left
Through this, amendments which affect such a health, education, law and order in the hands of the states
state power cannot be passed without their and even economic policy e.g. States act States have successfully taken a number of
consent, therefore protecting their power their own sales tac, with Montana cases to the SC allowing them to overturn
as congress cannot limit their power having no sales tax and Cali having $7.5 federally imposed policy
without their approval States also have diff punishments for Printz v US 1997 – SC overturned the Brady
E.g. the equal rights amendment was crim – 32 have death penalty Act requiring states to perform background
proposed again as recent as 1982 by States control elections to congress and checks on those wishing to purchase a gun
congress, which would provide equality of primaries and caucuses by deciding Dobbs v Jackson 2022 – SC overturned the
rights by the federal or state gov on account when elections are run, mechanisms case of Roe v Wade which meant that states
of sex used in polling stations and how once again held the power over abortion
States however rejected this proposal candidates will be chosen laws
reflecting their dominance which is Thus, states have their own powers Thus, the SC and the 10th amendment
provided by the constitution which the federal government arguably effectively uphold the powers of the states
Disagreement: has little influence on Disagreement:
The 10th amendment allowed federal Disagreement: In recent times, the SC has backed the
income tax – which means the states are Large changes in society have seen federal gov where disputes have arisen with
increasingly reliant on federal government federal gov power increase as power is the states
funding more controlled In ACA cases, the SC court has upheld
The central gov provides states with approx. National crisis has increased federal gov federal government power
a quarter of the total expenditure, although power as national solutions are needed In NFIB v Sebelius 2012 the Court upheld
this may not seem like a restriction on state – e.g. the 9/11 terrorist attacks leading Obama’s healthcare reforms
power, the restrictions appear from the to Bush establishing the Department of Arizona v USA 2012, the SC struck down ¾
conditions imposed upon the states Homeland Security provisions of Arizona state law affirming
receiving funding The economic crisis of 2008 – Obama immigration as principally a matter for the
If states are to maintain access to the large implementing the American recovery federal gov, not the states
funding from the federal gov, they have to and Reinvestment Act 2009 to invest Thus showing how the SC in some cases
adhere to policy requirement imposed by $800 billion into economy upholds the powers of the federal
the federal gov Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act 2001 to government over that of the state
E.g. Obama threatening to withhold funding improve the performance of schools in government
to the state of North Carolina when they worst performing states – thus showing Conclusion:
refused to comply with his policies on how federal gov has power over On the whole, as the SC in recent times has
allowing transgender people to use public education as well shown favour for federal government, it
restrooms in accordance with their gender Obamacare – federal gov influencing highlights the gradual erosion of state
identity healthcare, a state concern power
Thus, reliance of states on federal funding Conclusion:
enabled by the 10th amendment has Whilst states have their own reserved
allowed federal power to increase powers, it is unfair to say that the states
Conclusion: have full autonomy over their issues –
Therefore, whilst states have control over the federal gov’s power increases
amendments which directly impact them, it through times of national crisis, and
can be argued that states are still subject to they can also influence state only
federal control through funding – the concerns such as education and
federal gov can use it as an advantage healthcare
, Evaluate the view that the US Constitution is more effective at checking power of the
President than it is at checking power of Congress
Intro:
When the constitution was written in 1787, the Founding Fathers had a strong desire for ‘co-operation and compromise’ amongst the separate
institutions of government. In order to deem the checks and balances ad ‘effective’, they need to successfully ensure fluidity of decisions,
allowing all branches to work together.
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3
Disagreement Disagreement: Disagreement:
The president also has the power to veto .
legislation wanting to be passed by
Congress.
Article 1 clearly puts legislative powers in
the hands of congress; however the
President must approve legislation before it
is passed.
E.g. In 2020, Trump vetoed the Iran War
Powers regulation, which would have
limited the President’s ability to wage war
against Iran
The veto is a blunt check and gives the
President a final say on legislation, which is
difficult for Congress to overturn.
Agreement:
The US constitution gives Congress the
power to amend, block or even reject items
of legislation
This particular power has allowed Congress
to prevent the President abusing their
power as the head of state.
E.g. – 2017 Trump argued that he would
‘repeal and replace’ Obamacare, but he was
blocked by Congress.
This is significant as it portrays how the
constitution allows Congress to check the
powers of the government, and ensure they
are not abusing these powers, the founding
fathers did not want another tyrannical
leader ruling as King George did, and
therefore these checks Congress has on the
President allows for the founding father’s
wishes to be upheld.
Overall:
Although congress has the power to check the
President through rejecting legislation passed by
them, the President also has a similar power
where they can reject legislation passed by
Congress, which is much harder to overturn.
Evaluate the view that the constitutional system of checks and balances is an obstacle to
effective government
THE CONSTITUTION
Evaluate the extent to which states are dominated by federal government
Intro:
The US constitution protects state’s rights, but there is debate about how effectively it achieves this today
Federal encroachment began in the cooperative federalism period, but it would be incorrect to think that the new federalism era has seen a
return of power to the states
While it is true that the states have considerable autonomy of making their own laws, the argument that the federal gov continues to encroach
these powers is compelling
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3
Agreement: Agreement: Agreement:
States are not dominated by federal During National Crisis or disasters, state The SC has made rulings in favour of the
government because laws vary across the governors act in the best interest of state
states their states E.g. United States v Texas 2016 saw the SC
Criminal punishment for instance is Covid19- demonstrated the power of strike down Obama’s use of an executive
something which states are able to make the tenth amendment by which any order to implement his immigration reform
decisions on – the death penalty is legal in power not explicitly granted to the programme, ruling it to be unconstitutional
29 states and has been abolished in 21 federal government by the Constitution due to the cost to the states
Taxes – Taxation can also be set at state is left to the states or the people Obama’s healthcare reforms also had
level. There are huge differences in the 32 state governors issued their own implications for the federal-state
types of tax and 7 states have 0% taxation state of emergency before the national relationship – states ha to participate in the
while California has 13% taxation state of emergency issued by Trump on expansion for the Medicaid programme or
Legal status of marijuana – 11 states have 13 March 2020 lose their federal funding for Medicaid – a
legalised the recreational use of cannabis Some states were extremely quick to act number of states sued arguing it was a
and is it legal for medicinal use in 33 with Ohio governor Mike DeWine being violation of the principles of federalism and
the first to call for a state-wide closure in National Federation of Independent
Disagreement: of schools Business v Sebelius 2012, the SC agreed and
There have been cases in which federal Thus, it can be argued that states struck down Medicaid provision law
government has encroached numerous dominate in terms of national crisis,
state issues backed up by the 10th amendment Disagreement:
E.g. Education lies with the state, however, Although the SC case of National Federation
The No Child Left Behind Act, signed into Disagreement: of Independent Business v Sebelius 2012
law by Bush in 200, laid out a new mandate While state governors have struck down the Medicaid provision in the
that states should test children annually considerable autonomy in the logistics law, it nonetheless upheld the Affordable
Homeland security and national defence – of dealing with a natural disaster in their Care Act, leaving the federal government
in terms of national crisis, such as 9/11, state, they nonetheless depend on with significant control over healthcare
rather than individual states and localities federal government and the Federal While the ruling of the case meant that
formulating their own strategies, Homeland Emergency Management Agency states could not be compelled to expand
Security directed both states and cities on E.g. The federal gov responded to Medicaid, all but 14 states have now
how to provide protection against potential Hurricane Katrina in 2005 with approx. expanded the programme and Medicaid
terrorist attacks $120 billion of economic relief aid enrolment increased by 34% between 2013
In terms of national crisis, it is evident that Covid has also seen the gov actively and 2019
federal government are able to encroach involved with the CARES act 2020 being
state autonomy a $2.2. trillion economic relief package Overall
Thus, although it may be that the SC is
Overall: Overall prone to rule in favour of the states, this
States do have their own provisions for Despite states having a considerable case has shown that the federal
major issues, however, in times of national amount of power when it comes to government remains dominant over the
crisis, it is clear that Federal government dealing with national crisis, the federal states, especially in terms of healthcare
will remain dominant government also plays a huge role in
issues, and arguable remains dominant
over the states
, Evaluate the extent to which the US constitution protects state power
Intro:
The US constitution fully protects state power – the constitution underlines in the 10 th amendment that any powers not given to congress must
be a state power thus demonstrating that congress’ power is not given to federal gov must be a state power, this demonstrating that federal
power is diminished in comparison to the states
The amendment process further protects the states – ¾ of the states have to agree
Although, some may argue that both the necessary and proper clause and the interstate commerce clause shows how the constitution does not
protect state power, ultimately, those powers are not enumerated but are merely implied powers and cannot be used to justify that the
constitution does not protect state power
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3
Agreement: Agreement: Agreement:
The constitution protects state power The Constitution significantly protects The constitution strongly protects state’s
through the amendment process which is state power as federalism continues to power as the 10th amendment has been
outlines in article 5 of the constitution giver state governments a significant upheld
To pass an amendment, ¾ of the states degree of control The 10th amendment states that powers not
have to agree and ratify the proposal States are able to control large aspects, reserved for the federal gov should be left
Through this, amendments which affect such a health, education, law and order in the hands of the states
state power cannot be passed without their and even economic policy e.g. States act States have successfully taken a number of
consent, therefore protecting their power their own sales tac, with Montana cases to the SC allowing them to overturn
as congress cannot limit their power having no sales tax and Cali having $7.5 federally imposed policy
without their approval States also have diff punishments for Printz v US 1997 – SC overturned the Brady
E.g. the equal rights amendment was crim – 32 have death penalty Act requiring states to perform background
proposed again as recent as 1982 by States control elections to congress and checks on those wishing to purchase a gun
congress, which would provide equality of primaries and caucuses by deciding Dobbs v Jackson 2022 – SC overturned the
rights by the federal or state gov on account when elections are run, mechanisms case of Roe v Wade which meant that states
of sex used in polling stations and how once again held the power over abortion
States however rejected this proposal candidates will be chosen laws
reflecting their dominance which is Thus, states have their own powers Thus, the SC and the 10th amendment
provided by the constitution which the federal government arguably effectively uphold the powers of the states
Disagreement: has little influence on Disagreement:
The 10th amendment allowed federal Disagreement: In recent times, the SC has backed the
income tax – which means the states are Large changes in society have seen federal gov where disputes have arisen with
increasingly reliant on federal government federal gov power increase as power is the states
funding more controlled In ACA cases, the SC court has upheld
The central gov provides states with approx. National crisis has increased federal gov federal government power
a quarter of the total expenditure, although power as national solutions are needed In NFIB v Sebelius 2012 the Court upheld
this may not seem like a restriction on state – e.g. the 9/11 terrorist attacks leading Obama’s healthcare reforms
power, the restrictions appear from the to Bush establishing the Department of Arizona v USA 2012, the SC struck down ¾
conditions imposed upon the states Homeland Security provisions of Arizona state law affirming
receiving funding The economic crisis of 2008 – Obama immigration as principally a matter for the
If states are to maintain access to the large implementing the American recovery federal gov, not the states
funding from the federal gov, they have to and Reinvestment Act 2009 to invest Thus showing how the SC in some cases
adhere to policy requirement imposed by $800 billion into economy upholds the powers of the federal
the federal gov Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act 2001 to government over that of the state
E.g. Obama threatening to withhold funding improve the performance of schools in government
to the state of North Carolina when they worst performing states – thus showing Conclusion:
refused to comply with his policies on how federal gov has power over On the whole, as the SC in recent times has
allowing transgender people to use public education as well shown favour for federal government, it
restrooms in accordance with their gender Obamacare – federal gov influencing highlights the gradual erosion of state
identity healthcare, a state concern power
Thus, reliance of states on federal funding Conclusion:
enabled by the 10th amendment has Whilst states have their own reserved
allowed federal power to increase powers, it is unfair to say that the states
Conclusion: have full autonomy over their issues –
Therefore, whilst states have control over the federal gov’s power increases
amendments which directly impact them, it through times of national crisis, and
can be argued that states are still subject to they can also influence state only
federal control through funding – the concerns such as education and
federal gov can use it as an advantage healthcare
, Evaluate the view that the US Constitution is more effective at checking power of the
President than it is at checking power of Congress
Intro:
When the constitution was written in 1787, the Founding Fathers had a strong desire for ‘co-operation and compromise’ amongst the separate
institutions of government. In order to deem the checks and balances ad ‘effective’, they need to successfully ensure fluidity of decisions,
allowing all branches to work together.
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3
Disagreement Disagreement: Disagreement:
The president also has the power to veto .
legislation wanting to be passed by
Congress.
Article 1 clearly puts legislative powers in
the hands of congress; however the
President must approve legislation before it
is passed.
E.g. In 2020, Trump vetoed the Iran War
Powers regulation, which would have
limited the President’s ability to wage war
against Iran
The veto is a blunt check and gives the
President a final say on legislation, which is
difficult for Congress to overturn.
Agreement:
The US constitution gives Congress the
power to amend, block or even reject items
of legislation
This particular power has allowed Congress
to prevent the President abusing their
power as the head of state.
E.g. – 2017 Trump argued that he would
‘repeal and replace’ Obamacare, but he was
blocked by Congress.
This is significant as it portrays how the
constitution allows Congress to check the
powers of the government, and ensure they
are not abusing these powers, the founding
fathers did not want another tyrannical
leader ruling as King George did, and
therefore these checks Congress has on the
President allows for the founding father’s
wishes to be upheld.
Overall:
Although congress has the power to check the
President through rejecting legislation passed by
them, the President also has a similar power
where they can reject legislation passed by
Congress, which is much harder to overturn.
Evaluate the view that the constitutional system of checks and balances is an obstacle to
effective government
