AP® United States Government and Politics review sheet from Aim for Five (aimforfive.com/gov/units/1/1-9)
Unit 1 · Topic 1.9
1.9 Federalism in Action
Federalism shapes real policy fights. Because power is divided, people who lose at one level can try another, and national leaders often can't act alone. Debates over the drinking age, marijuana, disaster response and welfare show federalism in action.
Key terms
- multiple access points
- concurrent powers
- devolution
- unfunded mandate
Multiple access points in practice
Federalism gives citizens and groups many places to push. If Congress won't act, advocates can lobby state legislatures, put measures on state ballots, or ask governors to act. If a state won't act, they can go to Congress, federal agencies or federal courts. States are often called “laboratories of democracy,” an idea from Justice Louis Brandeis, because one state can try a policy and others can copy it if it works.
The flip side is that national leaders face limits. A president's plan may depend on governors and state agencies to carry it out, and states can refuse to take part in some programs.
Case study: the drinking age
Setting a drinking age is a reserved power of the states. In 1984 Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which withheld a portion of federal highway money from any state that didn't raise its drinking age to 21. South Dakota sued, but in South Dakota v. Dole (1987) the Court upheld the law as a valid use of Congress's spending power: the condition was related to highway safety and wasn't so harsh as to be coercive. Every state eventually adopted 21. This shows how the national government can reach into reserved areas through conditions of aid.
Case study: marijuana
Federal law, under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, has long classified marijuana as an illegal drug. Starting with California's medical marijuana law in 1996 and Colorado's and Washington's recreational laws in 2012, many states legalized it under state law anyway. In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Court ruled that Congress's commerce power still reaches marijuana grown at home for personal medical use, so federal law applies even in legalizing states. In practice, enforcement often depends on how actively federal officials choose to enforce, so state and federal law have been in open tension.
Case study: disaster response
States and local governments respond first to disasters. When a disaster overwhelms them, the governor asks the president for a federal disaster declaration, which unlocks money and help through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the Stafford Act (1988). After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, all levels of government were criticized for slow and confused coordination, a reminder that shared responsibility can blur who is in charge.
Devolution and the swinging balance
Devolution means shifting power and responsibility from the national government back to the states. The 1996 welfare reform law is the standard example: it replaced an open-ended federal program with TANF block grants and gave states more say over rules like work requirements. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (1995) and the Lopez decision (1.8) are part of the same 1990s trend.
The balance moves both ways over time. The New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s expanded national power. Later periods returned some power to states. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), the Court ruled that Congress could not take away all of a state's existing Medicaid money for refusing to join the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, so the expansion effectively became each state's choice.
Worked examples
Try each one yourself first, then open the solution.
- Example 1
Concept application: changing levels
An advocacy group fails to get Congress to pass a national ban on plastic shopping bags. It then persuades several state legislatures to pass their own bans. Explain how this scenario shows federalism creating multiple access points, and describe one limit on the group's strategy.
Show the solutionHide the solution
- Step 1: Name the concept: federalism divides power between national and state governments, so policy can be made at more than one level.
- Step 2: Apply it: after losing at the national level, the group shifts to state legislatures, which have their own power to regulate commerce within their borders and protect the environment.
- Step 3: Give a limit: state bans create a patchwork, so the policy covers only some states, and a later federal law could override state laws under the Supremacy Clause.
Answer: Federalism let the group move from Congress to state legislatures, which have their own lawmaking power. A limit is that the result is uneven across states and could be preempted by federal law.
Common mistakes
- Saying Congress set the drinking age directly. Congress used a condition on highway money; each state passed its own age-21 law.
- Treating devolution as an amendment or a court case. It's a trend or policy approach of shifting power to the states.
- Assuming state legalization makes marijuana legal under federal law. Under Gonzales v. Raich, federal law still applies.
On the exam
- Concept application questions often describe a policy dispute between states and Washington. Explain which level holds the power and which tool (grant condition, mandate, Supremacy Clause, court ruling) is at work.
- When asked for an effect of federalism, policy variation among states and multiple access points are reliable, well-supported answers.
Connected topics
Videos
Check yourself
5 questions on 1.9 Federalism in Action. Pick an answer to see if you got it, and why.
Federal law lists marijuana as an illegal controlled substance. In 2012, voters in Colorado and Washington approved ballot measures legalizing small amounts for adult personal use, and many other states later did the same. Federal agencies rely mostly on state and local police to enforce drug laws against individual users, and in these states those officers now work under laws that allow adult use.
Summary written for this practice set
Supporters of legalization turned to state ballot measures after making little progress in Congress. This strategy best illustrates how
Which statement best explains why these state laws limit the practical reach of the federal ban?
After a major hurricane, a governor asks the president for a federal disaster declaration. Federal agencies send money, supplies and rescue teams, while state and local agencies run shelters and decide where help goes first. This response best illustrates
In 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. The law did not directly ban anyone under 21 from buying alcohol. Instead, it told the Department of Transportation to withhold part of a state's federal highway money if the state allowed people under 21 to buy alcohol. Within a few years every state had raised its drinking age to 21. In South Dakota v. Dole (1987), the Supreme Court upheld the law as a valid use of Congress's spending power.
Summary written for this practice set
Based on South Dakota v. Dole, which response to the law was legally open to a state that wanted to keep a drinking age of 18?
Why did Congress tie the drinking age to highway money instead of simply passing a national drinking age?
0 of 5 answered