Dual Federalism: National And State Governments

Dual Federalism
Name
Course
Institution
Date

Dual Federalism This is a state of government where power is shared between the federal and the state governments. In dual federalism, both the national and the state governments hold sovereign power in their respective areas of authority. The separation of power, resources, and programs is clearly defined. Dual federalism is normally compared to a layer cake whereby the levels of powers do not overlap each other. In this case, no level should interfere with the powers of the other. That is why it is referred to as the exercise of concurrent power. That gives every level of government supremacy in their area of authority. This paper looks at the historical
In this case, the spheres of responsibility were clearly defined. A layer cake can best describe the division of power between the two levels of governance. At the time, different courts had different interpretations of federalism. The Marshall court supported expansive federal powers. This court had a major influence on how power was shared between the national and state governments. Two cases that were key in defining dual federalism are McCulloh v. Maryland of 1819 and Gibbons v. Ogden of 1824. The Taney Court on the other hand had a different view of federalism. The court supported two equally powerful levels of government (Lee, 2010). The court was of the view that the national government should not exceed its powers beyond the constitutionally accepted levels. The court was influential in limiting the control that the national government had on the issue of slavery and civil rights. One key case at the time was Dred Scott v. Sandford of
This was known as Regulated federalism. At this stage, there was even further intervention in the management of local programs and resources by the national government. The national government demanded to have more control by threatening to eliminate grants for certain programs. The state governments were given categorical grants whose discretion remained in the hands of national government. Such programs include grants given to fight national poverty. The ills that state governments seemed unable to handle were taken up by the national government. Such grants included money for urban renewal, education, and job training. In another example, the national government demanded that state governments regulate speed limits within states. Failure to do this would lead to the withdrawal of transport sector funding. At this time, the Supreme Court reduced the powers that the state government held while increasing national government