 From mid thirties to late seventies, there was a fairly stable political consensus (esp. among elites) about the role of national government in domestic affairs.However, Barry Goldwater challenged this consensus in 1964, leading to substantial electoral losses for Republicans in that year’s elections. Since 1980, there’s been a major "conservative” challenge (Since the eighties, mostly Republican presidents and since 1994, mostly Republican congresses) to this consensus.State legislatures: Republicans nearly equal with the Democrats1994:19R18D12S (Those seats add up to 49, not 50, because Nebraska has a non-partisan election and therefore can’t be counted here)With 2000, ’02, and ’04 elections, Republicans solidified control of Congress and for the fist time since 1953 Republicans control BOTH presidency and congress**BUT that all changed with the 2006 and 2008 elections… Democrats wins presidency in ‘08In Congress, Dems increase majority in ’08 after regaining control in ’06.In the states, governors:29D, 21R**BUT with November 2010 elections…Reps take controls of House although Dems win a smaller majority in SenateRepublicans make significant gains in the statesGovernors 29R, 20D, 1ILegislatures – 25R, 16D, 8S’12 election became (in part) a choice between alternative visions of the appropriate national government role in domestic affairs, but the results weren’t particularly decisive.Lecture 2 POLS 207Outline of Last Lecture:Centralization of American GovernmentI. Government Centralization at the national levelA. Loss of state and local powersB. Congressional actionII. Sources of/reasons for this centralizationA. Federal government has more money than state/localB. “Nationalist” interpretation of US ConstitutionOutline of Current Lecture:Congressional power limits and modern centralization cont.I. SCOTUS’ dual-track strategyA. Narrowing Congress’ commerce powerB. Reviving “sovereign immunity”II. Sources of modern centralization cont.A. Political participation systemB. Shifting ideological centerCurrent Lecture:I. Can Congress’ power be limited? SCOTUS is following a dual-track strategy to limit Congress’ authority:A. Narrowing reach of Congress’ 1:8 powers (esp. the commerce power - “The Congress shall have the Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States and with the Indian tribes”) In US vs. Lopez (1995) the Supreme Court recognized for the first time in sixty years that Congress’ power over interstate commerce is limited.  Congress only has powers specifically enumerated in Constitution. See D&M pg. 99-100 for elaboration General welfare power/police power should belong to the states. States have authority to regulate “public health, safety, and morals.”Side note: **Federal grant/aid usually turns into Federal intrusion because the Fed can monitor the results of their money. If their assistance is accepted, then they have a right to get involved.Accepting Federal aid = accepting that Big Brother Government will be with you every step of the spending process. Obamacare is an example of Congress trying to reign in interstate commerce clause but reinforced authority to tax and spend without limits.B. Reviving (since 1996) the doctrine of “sovereign immunity” Sovereign immunity is the idea that the government (the sovereign) cannot besued by its own justice system without its consent. It stems from the 11th Amendment (“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or subjects of any foreign State.”). Example: Americans with Disabilities Act (It’s on every syllabus) – If you try to sue Texas for infringement of this act, Texas has sovereign immunity. It can only be sued if it allows itself to besued.II. Sources of modern centralization, cont.:A. The political participation system Rights of participation have expanded. The voter base has ballooned from only white landowning males to every American citizen that is of age.**The modern beneficiaries of this (women and minorities) tend to be more supportive of an “activist” national government.B. A shifting ideological center From mid thirties to late seventies, there was a fairly stable political consensus (esp. among elites) about the role of national government in domestic affairs.However, Barry Goldwater challenged this consensus in 1964, leading to substantial electoral losses for Republicans in that year’s elections. Since 1980, there’s been a major "conservative” challenge (Since the eighties, mostlyRepublican presidents and since 1994, mostly Republican congresses) to this consensus.In '94 the Republicans took control of Congress, including the House of Representatives, which hadn’t happened since 1953 (See D&M, Ch. 5:164-167 for elaboration).Republicans also made significant gains in the states - State governors went from 20  30 overnightState legislatures: Republicans nearly equal with the Democrats1994: 19R18D12S (Those seats add up to 49, not 50, because Nebraska has a non-partisan election and therefore can’t be counted here)With 2000, ’02, and ’04 elections, Republicans solidified control of Congress and for the fist time since 1953 Republicans control BOTH presidency and congress**BUT that all changed with the 2006 and 2008 elections… Democrats wins presidency in ‘08In Congress, Dems increase majority in ’08 after regaining control in ’06.In the states, governors:29D, 21R**BUT with November 2010 elections…Reps take controls of House although Dems win a smaller majority in SenateRepublicans make significant gains in the statesGovernors 29R, 20D, 1ILegislatures – 25R, 16D, 8S’12 election became (in part) a choice between alternative visions of the appropriate national government role in domestic affairs, but the results weren’t particularly