Abstract
American federalism today can be described as coercive federalism in contrast to previous eras of dual federalism and cooperative federalism. The current system is “coercive” because the predominant political, fiscal, statutory, regulatory, and judicial trends entail impositions of federal dictates on state and local governments. This new phase of American federalism began in the late 1960s in succession to the previous stage of cooperative federalism that had commenced in the early 1930s.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
James Bryce, The American Commonwealth (New York: Macmillan, 1907), 353.
New State Ice Company v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932).
Edward S. Corwin, National Supremacy (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1913).
Edward S. Corwin, “A Constitution of Powers and Modern Federalism,” in Essays in Constitutional Law, ed. Robert G. McCloskey (New York: Knopf, 1962), 188–189.
Daniel J. Elazar, The American Partnership: Intergovernmental Co-operation in the Nineteenth-Century United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962) and Morton Grodzins, The American System: A New View of Government in the United States, ed. Daniel J. Elazar (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966).
Grodzins, The American System, 8.
For example, Jane Perry Clark, The Rise of a New Federalism: Federal-State Cooperation in the United States (New York: Columbia University Press, 1938).
Grodzins, The American System, 11.
Daniel J. Elazar, “Cooperative Federalism,” in Competition among States and Local Governments: Efficiency and Equity in American Federalism, ed. Daphne A. Kenyon and John Kincaid (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1991), 73.
Morton Grodzins, “Centralization and Decentralization in the American Federal System,” in A Nation of States, ed. Robert A. Goldwin, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1974), 24.
John Kincaid, “Frank Hague and Franklin Roosevelt: The Hudson Dictator and the Country Democrat,” in Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Man, The Myth, The Era, ed. Herbert D. Rosenbaum and Elizabeth Bartelme (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1987), 13–39.
John Kincaid, “Constitutional Federalism: Labor’s Role in Displacing Places to Benefit Persons,” PS: Political Science & Politics 26 (June 1993): 172–177.
William H. Riker, Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance (Boston: Little, Brown, 1964), 155.
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) and Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
Allen D. Hertzke and Ronald M. Peters, eds. The Atomistic Congress: An Interpretation of Congressional Change (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1992).
John Kincaid, “The State of U.S. Federalism, 2000–2001,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 31 (Summer 2001): 1–69.
Quoted in Brody Mullins, “As Earmarked Funding Swells, Some Recipients Don’t Want It,” Wall Street Journal, December 26, 2006, A10.
David Kirkpatrick, “A Congressman’s $10 Million Gift for Road is Rebuffed,” New York Times, August 18, 2007, A7.
William Wyatt, “Washington Watch: 10 Top Issues for States,” State Legislatures 32 (January 2006): 15.
National Academy of Public Administration, Beyond Preemption: Intergovernmental Partnerships to Enhance the New Economy (Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration, 2006).
P.L. 109–364, Sec. 1076.
Stephen Labaton, “‘Silent Tort Reform’ Is Overriding States’ Powers,” New York Times, March 10, 2006, C5.
John Maggs, “Limping Toward Tax Reform,” National Journal 37 (October 22, 2005): 3280.
Peter J. Ferrara, “The NGA Should Pay Its Own Way,” Policy Brief (Washington, DC: Americans for Tax Reform, 2005).
CNN, “Justice Ginsburg: Supreme Court Faces Stormy Times,” June 12, 2003, http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/12/ginsburg.aclu.ap/.
Northern Insurance Company New York v. Chatham County, 126 S.Ct. 1689 (2006).
John Kincaid and Richard L. Cole, “Public Opinion on Issues of Federalism in 2007: A Bush Plus?” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 38 (2008): forthcoming.
Rozann Rothman, “Political Method In The Federal System: Albert Gallatin’s Contribution,” Publius: The Journal of Federctlism 1 (Winter 1972): 123–141.
Elazar, The American Partnership.
Katrina vanden Huevel, “Taking It to the States,” The Nation, January 20, 2005, http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=2137 (accessed February 1, 2006).
Associated Press, “Activists Push for Limits on Abortion through Legislation at State Level,” Express-Times (Easton), March 12, 2003, A-5.
Brooke A. Masters, 2005. “Who’s Watching Out for the Consumer?” Washington Post National Weekly Edition, January 17, 2005, 30.
Quoted in Dennis Cauchon, “Fed-up states defy Washington,” USA Today, December 8, 2003, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003–12–08states-usatx.htm.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2008 Iwan W. Morgan and Philip J. Davies
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kincaid, J. (2008). Three Faces of Contemporary American Federalism. In: Morgan, I.W., Davies, P.J. (eds) The Federal Nation. Studies of the Americas. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230617254_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230617254_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-37589-9
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-61725-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)