Federalism in the United States
The Federalism in the United States describes the relations between the federal government and the states of the United States of America . It thus represents part of the federal political system in the USA .
The United States is divided into smaller autonomous units , some of which can fulfill their own governmental tasks. These units include the 50 states, the federal district, and the dependent suburbs .
In the American understanding of law, the states are granted partial sovereignty , since they originally emerged from the 13 former British colonies after the War of Independence . This partial sovereignty is shown in the fact that they represent separate legal spaces and maintain separate political systems. Each state has its own government consisting of an executive , judiciary and legislative branch .
origin
Before the United States Constitution was passed , the 13 colonies were generally sovereign. They had come together in a relatively loose confederation of states in accordance with the articles of confederation , whereby the supranational institutions that had emerged had little power to make decisions. The failure of these institutions was one of the main reasons for the creation of a new constitution and thus a new federal state in the legal sense . In the constitutional debates - carried out in particular by the so-called Anti-Federalist and Federalist Papers - the federal systems of the Old Confederation , the Republic of the Seven United Provinces and the Holy Roman Empire formed important links.
Federalism itself is not mentioned in the constitution, as the sovereign former colonies were viewed as the starting point. Accordingly, the constitution mainly contains provisions that change this status quo instead of describing an entirely new state structure. This starting position also explains the relatively strong position of the federal states, which differs sharply from the situation in Germany , for example .
In their ideas, the founding fathers proceeded according to the principle of subsidiarity , which means that the federal government should only receive competences in areas that could not be fulfilled by the federal states themselves (delegated powers) . They were strongly colored by their own experiences after the War of Independence, in particular the mutual trade blockades of the colonies through the establishment of import and export tariffs and the devaluation of domestic currencies.
Characteristics
At the federal level
American federalism is particularly characterized by the fact that the constitution defines the legislative powers of the federal government very precisely (enumerated powers) . For example, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution provides a list of areas in which Congress can pass laws . For example, he can levy taxes, regulate trade with foreign countries and between states, determine the type and value of currency, set up a post office, determine patent and copyright law, create federal courts and administer a military.
The competencies of the congress have been drawn a number of limits, which are also relevant for federalism. According to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution , all powers that have not been passed by the Constitution to the federal government or that have been withdrawn from the states belong to the states or their people. In addition, Amendment 11 prohibits states from being sued in federal courts by citizens of other states.
At the state level
The constitution guarantees the states autonomy in all areas that are not expressly granted to the federal government. Accordingly, each state has its own political system and constitution, its own legislation , its own executive power and its own jurisdiction. In parallel to the president, there is a governor in every state, and just as there is a Congress with Senate and House of Representatives at the federal level, there are two-chamber parliaments in all states except Nebraska . Should a reorganization of the federal territory be necessary, the federal states affected by the reorganization must agree to this, as in Germany.
The strict separation of competencies can be seen particularly in American case law. Each state has a complete judicial and judicial system with first instance, appeals and supreme courts. However, the federal government also has its own court system with the same elements. Cases can be heard in either the state courts or the federal courts, depending on the subject matter. Most court cases, especially almost all civil and criminal cases, are heard in the national courts. The federal courts, on the other hand, are mainly responsible for questions of federal law, especially if the case falls under federal jurisdiction. Also, appeals to the Supreme Court from a state's Supreme Court are only permitted, and only if there are constitutional issues to be resolved or the state has violated federal law. One effect of this autonomy is that there is generally no legal entity in most areas between states.
In addition to this relatively high degree of independence of the states, the constitution also partially limits their rights in other areas. For example, they must mutually recognize the documents and decisions of the other states ( full faith and credit ). This means, for example, that a marriage that was concluded in California must also be recognized in all other 49 states, or that maintenance owed in Virginia can also be collected in Texas. They must also extradite people who are wanted by other states in the context of criminal proceedings. The states are also prohibited from entering into treaties with other states or foreign countries, maintaining their own military, engaging in acts of war, or levying tariffs without the approval of Congress.
Teamwork
In contrast to Germany, American federalism is deliberately not cooperative . The cooperation of the federal government with the state governments is rather the exception and takes place mainly in the event of a disaster. In particular, there is no shared responsibility for the implementation of laws. Laws passed by Congress are executed by the federal executive, not the state executive. An example of this is tax collection. Both states (e.g. sales tax, property tax, business tax, partial income tax) and the federal government (e.g. income tax , luxury taxes) levy taxes. Taxes are collected separately at both the state level by local authorities and at the federal level by the Internal Revenue Service . The American pension (Social Security) and partial health insurance (Medicare / Medicaid) are also administered centrally in Washington, DC .
In a few exceptions, Congress has approved funding for federal tasks, but the states are responsible for doing these. The American Interstate Highway System is largely paid for by Congress, but construction is administered by the individual states involved.
The transfer of funds (grants-in-aid) from the federal government to the federal states to fulfill certain tasks has in the past also led to the fact that the congress made non-material provisions as a condition for the grant. In the United States, all states cannot drink alcohol unless they are 21 or older. Lower-aged states were excluded from federal funding for their highways. The previous national speed limit of 55 mph (88.5 km / h) was based on a similar regulation. A final attempt to increase the legislative power of Congress through such tactics failed in 1995 when the Supreme Court found that the power of Congress to regulate trade between states was insufficient to ban firearms on school grounds nationwide .
Special elements of American federalism, especially in the last century, are the so-called unfunded mandates , federal laws that impose obligations on the states but do not provide the means to fulfill them. An example of this is a federal law that requires hospitals and ambulances to treat patients in emergencies regardless of their solvency. Another federal law also requires that companies generally provide facilities that can also be used by disabled people. In both cases the federal government does not plan to reimburse the costs of these measures.
Legal status of the individual states in federalism
The individual states are in a vertical relationship with the federal government as well as in horizontal relationships with other states, be they direct neighbors or through indirect effects.
Relationship between states and the federal government
According to the supremacy clause of the US Constitution, federal law takes precedence over state law. On the other hand, all areas of regulation are reserved for the individual states that are not expressly assigned to the federal government in the constitution.
Since the first third of the 20th century in particular, this has given rise to countless conflicts in the vertical relationship between the federal government and the states. It typically concerned what the federal government was allowed to regulate on the basis of which authorization in the constitution. The interstate commerce clause , according to which the federal government may regulate the unhindered movement of goods across national borders, was worked out as the central norm . Since practically all goods and services in the USA are or can be offered to customers outside their own state, the federal government decided to intervene largely in the design, production, sale and use of goods, as well as the offer and execution of services.
Since basic questions were clarified by the Supreme Court of the United States , there has been a widespread tendency in jurisprudence and practice to resolve remaining and newly emerging conflicts politically and, as a rule, not to transfer them to the court. The field of politics offers a greater variety of conflict resolution than court judgments through middle paths, settlement and compromise. This does not stand in the way of the occasional Supreme Court litigation disputing the legality of federal laws because of unclear empowerment in the constitution. In practice, however, plaintiffs are no longer the direct federal states, as they used to be, but private individuals who want to overturn a federal law and attack its legal basis in the form of authorization.
Relationship between states
In principle, every state in the United States is sovereign, or quasi-sovereign, over the areas that states regulate in the constitution and practice. In fact, however, regulations in one state can have a wide range of horizontal effects in other states.
Shortly after the Second World War, the economic relations between the states were so intertwined that there were incentives to standardize laws. The central norm in this context is the Uniform Commercial Code , the purchase rights . Its core is the same in all 50 states, with opening clauses allowing the individual states some areas in which they can deviate from the principles. However, these uniform laws only cover small parts of the law of the individual states. There remain large fields in which the states regulate their affairs. Many of them develop, intentionally or unintentionally, effects beyond their limits.
Direct effects were, for example, the emission and consumption limits that California first introduced in the late 1970s for all cars sold in this state and which have since been tightened several times. California has no auto industry, so Michigan-based manufacturers had to adhere to California guidelines if they wanted to continue selling their cars in the largest and most economically powerful state. In this way, however, the stricter limit values benefited all citizens across the United States, because manufacturers were selling their more economical and cleaner vehicles everywhere.
There were indirect effects, for example, when the large state of Texas changed its school curricula conservatively and commissioned corresponding school books. Other states could now either use these conservative school books as well or had to buy more expensive books from smaller publishers because the economies of scale of the great demand from Texas would then disappear.
But the absence of regulation also affects other states. In the 1960s, West Virginia suffered from exhaust fumes and massive dust from a coal-fired power plant built in Ohio near the border. Ohio saw no reason for stricter regulations, because the prevailing winds left its citizens unaffected by the emissions. This case is considered to be the central trigger for a reform of the federal law to protect the air, the Clean Air Act of 1970.
On the other hand, New York City found that a large number of criminals owned and used guns bought in Georgia . Because of its very liberal gun laws, almost anyone could buy guns there without being restricted to resale. Undercover New York Police officers were able to buy guns in Georgia despite openly saying they wanted to bring the guns to New York and they weren't allowed to buy or own them there. As a result, New York City wanted to apply New York State liability law in a New York court and hold the Georgia dealer liable for all damage caused in New York with weapons bought from him.
The solution to this and similar conflicts between states is highly controversial. American jurisprudence predominantly assumes that such effects across state borders are undesirable and that the resulting disputes should be decided by the courts.
A more recent opinion, which has so far been in the minority, would like to apply the experience gained from the vertical relationship between individual states and the federal government to horizontal conflicts. Accordingly, the conflicts should be resolved primarily on the political stage through negotiations and compromises. If the states involved cannot find a solution among themselves, there is also the option of the United States Congress to take the conflict to the federal level and resolve it there. The latter is expressly regulated in the US Constitution in the Full Faith and Credit Clause .
As with vertical conflicts, the advantage would be that those involved would be forced to grapple with each other's positions. In view of the solidified conditions in the blue and red countries, they would otherwise move too much in their own camp and would have hardly any contacts and even less compensation. Courts, on the other hand, would produce winners and losers and would not compromise.
In practice, courts have established principles that prevent direct discrimination in business dealings with other individual states. Since 1945, the Supreme Court has also recognized the reality of the effect across state borders. For this purpose, it falls back on the rule of law guarantee of the Due Process Clause and grants legal protection against regulations in other countries in individual cases. However, it has held back and offers little incentive to file lawsuits. This leaves room for politics.
Debates
In the United States, the exact extent of federalism and thus the competency boundaries between the federal government and the states has been discussed since it was founded. From the late 1820s, Andrew Jackson and his political heirs tried to use the concept of Jacksonian Democracy to push back the power of the US federal government.
During the Civil War the continuing tensions over the question of the distribution of power between the federal government and the states erupted. Many today see both the rejection of the federal authority to regulate slavery and the understanding that states have voluntarily joined the United States and can accordingly leave the United States as a reason for war. As a result of the war, the central federal government was further strengthened and a clear understanding that states can only leave the federal government with its consent.
At the time of the global economic crisis , there was another heated debate about the extent to which the federal government could adopt initiatives for an economic upswing, since economic policy was always the responsibility of the individual states. These questions were followed by a long series of court cases that eventually led to the Supreme Court finding that Congress does have that power.
Particularly noteworthy discussions exist, for example, on the law on abortion, which until Roe v. Wade (1973) was regulated individually by the states, or the question of same-sex marriage , in which calls for the embedding of the traditional concept of marriage in the federal constitution were loud, particularly during the 2004 presidential election campaign .
See also
Individual evidence
- ↑ Volker Depkat: The Old Empire in the Constitutional Debates of Colonial British North America and the USA, 1750–1788 (PDF; 243 kB). DTIEV-Online No. 1/2013, Hagener online contributions to the European constitutional sciences , ISSN 2192-4228 , p. 3.
- ↑ Unless otherwise stated, the representation of the legal relationships is based on: Heather K. Gerken and Ari Holtzblatt: The Political Safeguard of Horizontal Federalism , June 2014
- ↑ The lawsuit has been running since 2006, the relevant process has not yet been completed (as of 2015). See: Amended Complaint, City of New York v. A-1 Jewelry & Pawn, Inc., (EDNY Sep. 6, 2007) (No. 06 CV 2233), 2007 WL 2739888.
literature
- Jörg Annaheim: The member states in the American federal state: Institutions and processes for the protection of the interests of the member states in the United States of America. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1992 (publications on international law; vol. 60), ISBN 3-428-07441-6 . Zugl .: Basel, Univ., Diss., 1990.
- Daniel J. Elazar: American Federalism. A View from the States. 3rd edition, Harper & Row, New York [u. a.] 1984, ISBN 0-06-041884-2 .
- Franz Greß , Detlef Fechtner , Matthias Hannes : The American federal system. Federal balance in comparative perspective . Lang, Frankfurt am Main [a. a.] 1994, ISBN 3-631-47531-4 .
- Christoph M. Haas: The government systems of the individual states. In: Wolfgang Jäger , Christoph M. Haas, Wolfgang Welz (Hrsg.): Government system of the USA. Instructional and manual. 3rd, revised and updated edition, Oldenbourg, Munich [u. a.] 2007, ISBN 978-3-486-58438-7 , pp. 459-496.
- Wolfgang Welz: The federal structure. In: Wolfgang Jäger, Christoph M. Haas, Wolfgang Welz (Hrsg.): Government system of the USA. Instructional and manual. 3rd, revised and updated edition, Oldenbourg, Munich [u. a.] 2007, ISBN 978-3-486-58438-7 , pp. 69-98.