POLS 102 1st Edition Lecture 6Outline of Last Lecture 1. The Constitutiona. Article 1b. Article 2c. Article 3d. Article 4e. Article 5f. Article 6g. Article 72. Federalisma. Dual b. Cooperative3. Government of National Power – relative to statesOutline of Current Lecture 1. Growth of National Power – relative to states (continued)a. Judicial Revolutions (continued)i. McColloch v. Maryland 1819 (continued)ii. NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1935); National Labor Relations Act; US v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941); Fair Labor Standards Act; Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) & the Civil Rights ActThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.b. Large democratic party majorities controlled the White House and both houses of Congress in the 30’s which led to a historical re-interpretation of the Constitution and growth of national powerc. Contemporary political conflict between conservatives who (mostly) want to devolve power to states – and – liberals who (mostly) want power at the nationallevel.2. Cooperative Federalism at worka. Carrots (Fruitcake Federalism)i. Grantsii. SticksCurrent LectureFederalism – the flow of democratic authority and the idea that the state and national governments exist.Growth Of National Power – relative to states (continued)- Judicial Revolutions (continued)o McColloch v. Maryland 1819  Used the Supremacy Clause – when state laws conflict with national law, national law predominates.  John Marshall said that “the power to tax is the power to destroy” Lawmakers in MD (Jeffersonians) were trying to crush Federalists instrument of power An example of the political process – starting with values and interests and resulting in policy outcomeso National Labor Relations Act – allowed workers to negotiate the terms of their employment and encourage collective bargaining.o National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1935) Congress tried to set laws about how long children could work. The Supreme Court told Congress that they couldn’t do it because it was a matter of workers in a state – not interstate commerce.  In the 1930’s the Supreme Court changed their decision because the commerce in one state affects the economy and workers in another state. Therefore, if Congress says that you affect Interstate Commerce, you haveto abide by their rules regarding Interstate Commerce.o US v. Darby Lumber Company 1941 Darby Lumber Company tried to say they don’t have to abide by the national minimum wage that was set because it would only be changed intheir state.  The Supreme Court said that they have to abide by the minimum wage law because their wages affect other states and their workers = so they deemed it as interstate commerce.o Katzenbach v. McClung 1964 A small, family owned BBQ shack didn’t want to serve African Americans and they said that should be allowed because their business doesn’t affect other states. The Civil Rights Act prohibited segregation and Congress decided that the BBQ shack affected other states business so it was included in interstate commerce. Therefore; segregation wasn’t allowed in the BBQ shack.- Large Democratic Party Majorities controlled the White House and both house of Congress in the 30’s and 60’so These historic elections came up with a new interpretation of the Constitution o 1932 Election and 1964 Election overcoming transaction costs of separation of powers system (Federalist 51 by Madison)o 1932 – Democratic majority Stock market crash led to The Great Depression  President Hoover (Republican) said there’s not much government can do about the crash As President FDR was put in a position to pass most legislation that he wanted because of the democratic majority in the House New Dealo 1964 – Democratic majority  How Medicare, anti-poverty and housing laws were created They were in favor of using the government to regulate economic activity Linden Johnsons Great Society o This is how the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010 – through a House majority and President Having majority is a rare occasiono Filibuster - an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures One can call for a vote in the house  If you can get 60/100 Senators to agree, that’s great If you can’t get 60/100 Senators then they can filibuster and talk about whatever they want to stall the vote.o The democrats changed the interpretation of the Constitution, which is why Conservatives argue the decisions in the Jones, Darby and Katzenbach cases. o The power of the national government today is a direct result of the elections in 1932 and 1964. From laws expanding the power of the national government and the Supreme Court interpreting the laws the way they did as a result of politics.- Contemporary political conflict between conservatives who (mostly) want to devolve power to states – and – liberals who (mostly) want power at the national level. o Conservatives aren’t afraid of using national power to succeed in getting what they want – they just prefer not too Liberals have lower transaction costs by going to the national level of government – so they do.o See: 3-2 Kettle “Federalism means war” (pages 88-89)Cooperative Federalism at Work- State and national government make policies – and they require money1. Carrots (Fruitcake Federalism)a. If you do what I want you to do, I’ll give you a carrot (this example can interchange with money instead of a carrot)b. Fruitcake Federalism – the idea that states are addicted to money and they will do whatever the national government wants if they will give them the moneyi. Example: one aspect of the Affordable Care Act was that if states would add more people into their Medicaid program then the national government will give them extra money. Some states agreed and some states said no.c. Grants – can be less or more restrictived. Sticks i. Pre-emption (116)1. National law that bypasses the state law2. Congress telling states to be more restrictive on things like carbon dioxide emissions.ii. Unfunded Mandates – the national government wants you to do something but they aren’t going to pay you for