• Here is a list of (potential) list of the things that are fair game for the group projects:
• Melting Pot, Mosaic, or Salad Bowl (how do you feel about urban diversity?
• The Controversy over immigration
• Urban poverty
• Poverty and public policy
• Crime, criminal punishment, and the criminal justice system
• Public education and the city
• Talk about each of these issues in class.
• By now, paper proposal topics should be into the instructor.

• In the last class, we talked about the “new federalism” and the notion of “devolution”:
• Devolution (see "new federalism") = Describes the evolving (or in this case, de-evolving) relationship between the national and state governments as they sort out their roles and responsibilities within the federal system
• Devolution, one of the leading Washington buzzwords these days, is at the heart of the new federalism.
• In a sentence, devolution is the passing down of responsibilities from the national government to states and local governments.
• In this class, we will continue that discussion. But doing so requires that we deal with several additional questions in detail:
• What is Federalism?
• Why Federalism?
• What is a Unitary system?
• What is Confederation?

• What the Founding Fathers had in mind when then created federalism (the intended consequences)
• What actually happens because of federalism (the unforeseen and unintended consequences)
• Weighing the good with the bad (this is where the Peterson reading comes in).

• The relationship between the national government and its states and localities, once evolving, is said to be in a state of “devolution.” But before we can talk about any of that, we have to take care of some housekeeping.

• Previous definition: Yesterday, I told you that Federalism = Addresses two main questions:
• What level of government should do what?
• Who should pay for it?
• Upgraded definition: Federal is a series of Constitutional arrangements that divide power between the nation and its states and localities.
• Both the nation and its states and localities can enforce its laws directly on its citizens.
• Neither nations nor states can change this arrangement without the consent of the other.

• James Madison (Federalist 39): "the proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both"
• Why have a state and local governments anyway? Why not have just a centralized political system with a single government accountable to national majorities in national elections that can implement uniform policies throughout the country?

• Why go through all the hassle of breaking things up?
• The founding fathers of our nation wanted to safeguard against government tyranny.

• Think of Federalism as a system of supplementary precautions against the tyranny of central leadership.
• The Constitution has several (2) built-in safeguards against this potential tyranny of the federal government:
• One of which is the separation of power, which disperses governmental power (to ability to determine who will hold government office and how the government will behave) among the separate executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

• …Of particular relevance to us are:
• The notion of a Unitary System
• The notion of Confederation

• Think of it this way, if Federalism is based on a series of special (quote/unquote) “Constitutional Arrangements,” then the notions of a “Unitary [American] System” and collective American “Confederation” make up the actual arrangement upon which Federalism hinges.

• Built into our Constitution is this notion of Unitary Systems:
• If Federalism is based on a (quote/unquote) “Constitutional Arrangement,” then the Unitary System is the actual Constitutional arrangement on which Federalism hinges.
• The notion of an American Unitary system ensures that:
• The authority rests with the national government.
• The State and local governments have only those powers given to them by the national government.

• Also built into our Constitution is the notion of Confederation:
• States that the national government is created by (and relies on) state and local governments for its authority.
• This is what President Reagan's was referring to when he made his inaugural address in 1981: "The federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government."

When the men of 1787 created the US Constitution, they expected great things out of Federalism. This vision led to several hypothesized results for American governance:

Federalism provides another “check” in the American checks and balances system

• Why: This gets back the Federalist papers debates. Get notes on this after you finish.

• Why: Decentralizing power distributes it more widely among different sets of leaders.
• Multiple leadership groups is assumed to be more democratic than a single set of allpowerful groups0.

• Why: Decentralization allows more people to participate in the political system.
• State and local elections are considered “closer to the people”
• Being able to participate generally (at both the local and national level) is supposed to make citizens support for the political system more

• Why: Decentralization makes the government more manageable and efficient
• “If local governments did not exist, then they would have to be invented.
• Governments become arbitrary when national bureaucracies try to direct local administrations. They are too far from the local scene to be govern local doings.
• Decentralization softens the rigidity of national law.

• Why: Decentralized governments encourage policy responsiveness.
• Multiple competing governments are more sensitive to the needs of citizens.
• Americans move a lot (a national average of once every 5 years), and the mobile nature of Americans facilitates a better match between citizen preferences and public policy.

• Why: Competition between/among governments provides additional incentives for creativity in public policy creation.
• Federalism may be perceived as being “conservative by our standards, but, back in the day, it was viewed as the instrument of American “progressivism.”

• Why: Decentralization reduces the level of severity of national conflict.
• Decentralization brings different people together w/out endangering national and irresolvable conflict.

Federalism is not w/out its faults. Among the many unintended consequences of federalism are the
following:

Federalism can obstruct national policies

•  Why: Federalism allows state and local officials to “stand in the way” of the national government taking action on issues.
• Local leaders can frustrate the national policy by sacrificing national interests for local interests.
• Decentralized government gives local NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) the opportunities to obstruct airports, highways, waste disposal plants, public housing, and many other projects in the national interests.

• Why: Second face of power = ability to keep issues off the agenda.
• Although decentralization reduces conflict at the national level, it may do so at the expense of some important national issues/injustices being “swept under the rug.”

• Why: The benefits and costs of government are not evenly distributed under a federalist system.
• During the Civil Rights Movement, issues like school segregation were deemed “state problems”, and the federal government did not want to get involved in them.
• In this respect, federalism is the opposite of uniformity

• Who Should Do What? Peterson’s argument:
• More devoluti on may lead to economic growth (which may be good), but it can also leat to more inequality (which may be bad).

Excellent web site: http://www.min.net/~kala/fed/devo.htm . They got lots of info there.