Evaluate the view that federalism is dead. (30)
Federalism is a system of government whereby power is divided between the federal
government (the executive and Congress) and the state government, which both have
control over clearly defined areas of policy, laid out in the constitution. On the one hand,
the size and power of the federal government to some extent. However, the
federal-state relationship fluctuates, and while there has been some erosion of
federalism, it is more convincing to argue that as the states still have significant
autonomy, and the power of the federal government has been limited to what is
necessary, the US remains a federal country, and federalism is not dead.
On the one hand, it could be argued that the constitution’s own elasticity has harmed
federalism, as it allows for encroachment by the federal government into areas that
have been traditionally controlled by the states. Arguably, the Supreme Court’s broad
interpretation of Congress’ implied powers have led to the federal government
increasing its powers. For example, the ‘necessary and proper’ clause in Article 1,
Section 8 of the US constitution, as well as the ability of Congress to ‘regulate interstate
commerce’ are both elastic clauses that allow sweeping power over the states and
stipulate that Congress should determine trade with foreign actors as well as with the
states. For example, the Interstate Transport Bill that is currently before Congress
proposes to make it easier to allow the transport of knives across states - overriding
states with restrictions - which its authors justified by citing the commerce clause.
Similarly, in NFIB v Sebelius (2012), the Affordable Care Act was upheld by the
Supreme Court’s broad reading of both the commerce and necessary and proper
clauses, as it regulated health insurance markets across states. This suggests that the
elasticity of the constitution firmly advantages the federal government at the expense of
the states, supporting the argument that federalism is dead. However, the more
convincing argument is that federalism is still effectively protected by the US
constitution. In particular, the 10th amendment gives the states power over all matters
which were not specifically enumerated to the states, which pulls the constitution
towards state rights. This can be seen with New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s
statewide ban on mobile phones in schools, joining eight other states which have
enacted measures banning or restricting phone use in schools. This is a clear example
of the state exercising its autonomy over policy that the federal government has little
control over, and this looks set to increase given Trump’s executive order to close the
Department of Education, essentially passing full control of education policy back to the
states. The states also enjoy concurrent powers shared between the federal and state
governments, including power over taxation, which allow states to function as ‘policy
labs’, such as the legalisation of marijuana in 24 states for recreational use. This lack of
uniformity points to the broader autonomy of states and is further evidence that
© Humanities Unlocked. | Edexcel A-level Politics 2025 | For personal use only. Redistribution is
prohibited.
Federalism is a system of government whereby power is divided between the federal
government (the executive and Congress) and the state government, which both have
control over clearly defined areas of policy, laid out in the constitution. On the one hand,
the size and power of the federal government to some extent. However, the
federal-state relationship fluctuates, and while there has been some erosion of
federalism, it is more convincing to argue that as the states still have significant
autonomy, and the power of the federal government has been limited to what is
necessary, the US remains a federal country, and federalism is not dead.
On the one hand, it could be argued that the constitution’s own elasticity has harmed
federalism, as it allows for encroachment by the federal government into areas that
have been traditionally controlled by the states. Arguably, the Supreme Court’s broad
interpretation of Congress’ implied powers have led to the federal government
increasing its powers. For example, the ‘necessary and proper’ clause in Article 1,
Section 8 of the US constitution, as well as the ability of Congress to ‘regulate interstate
commerce’ are both elastic clauses that allow sweeping power over the states and
stipulate that Congress should determine trade with foreign actors as well as with the
states. For example, the Interstate Transport Bill that is currently before Congress
proposes to make it easier to allow the transport of knives across states - overriding
states with restrictions - which its authors justified by citing the commerce clause.
Similarly, in NFIB v Sebelius (2012), the Affordable Care Act was upheld by the
Supreme Court’s broad reading of both the commerce and necessary and proper
clauses, as it regulated health insurance markets across states. This suggests that the
elasticity of the constitution firmly advantages the federal government at the expense of
the states, supporting the argument that federalism is dead. However, the more
convincing argument is that federalism is still effectively protected by the US
constitution. In particular, the 10th amendment gives the states power over all matters
which were not specifically enumerated to the states, which pulls the constitution
towards state rights. This can be seen with New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s
statewide ban on mobile phones in schools, joining eight other states which have
enacted measures banning or restricting phone use in schools. This is a clear example
of the state exercising its autonomy over policy that the federal government has little
control over, and this looks set to increase given Trump’s executive order to close the
Department of Education, essentially passing full control of education policy back to the
states. The states also enjoy concurrent powers shared between the federal and state
governments, including power over taxation, which allow states to function as ‘policy
labs’, such as the legalisation of marijuana in 24 states for recreational use. This lack of
uniformity points to the broader autonomy of states and is further evidence that
© Humanities Unlocked. | Edexcel A-level Politics 2025 | For personal use only. Redistribution is
prohibited.
