Explore the debate between federal supremacy and states' rights.

As Wilson suggested, there have been numerous attempts throughout American political history to define and redefine federalism. However, the best efforts of both national and state political leaders and Supreme Court justices notwithstanding, this nation has never settled on one definition of federalism. Historically, presidents, members of Congress, judges, and state and local leaders have held often radically opposed definitions and interpretations of federalism. The table below (Table 5–1) will give you an overview of four views of federalism, which will be discussed in more detail in the following pages.

Dual Federalism

During the first century of this nation’s existence, the most widely accepted view of the relationship between the states and the national government was one of “dual federalism.” Dual federalism is based on the notion that there are two distinct spheres of government; a national sphere and a state sphere. This concept is sometimes called the "layered cake" theory of federalism. Within each sphere, the relevant government is independent and largely autonomous, free from intrusions by the other. The main idea behind dual federalism is that issues that are not national in scope or significance are most appropriately addressed by the level of government closest to the people. In other words, the national government handles national issues, the state government handles state issues, and so forth.

While the notion that states remained completely sovereign and independent from the national government had been soundly rejected during the Civil War, dual federalism continued to be the most widely held view of federalism in this nation until the 1930s. Historians and students of federalism generally point to the Great Depression as the point in time when dual federalism fell out of fashion. In response to this nation’s worst economic crisis, the national government mobilized as it never had before, creating several new, largescale programs, including nationally administered jobs programs and Social Security. The massive extension of national governmental authority and influence that accompanied these programs dramatically altered the balance of power between the national government and the states. With the cooperation of the Supreme Court, the dual federalism approach was replaced with a new understanding of national-state relations, one which gave much greater weight to the national government prerogatives.

Since the 1980s, dual federalism has gradually regained support among politicians and, more recently, Supreme Court justices. Presidents Reagan and Clinton both sought to reestablish clearer lines between national and state functions. More dramatically, however, the Supreme Court has resurrected the concept of dual federalism and dual sovereignty in some of its recent decisions. When the Court declared a provision of the Brady Bill unconstitutional in 1997, it did so because, in the opinion of the Court, it violated the notion of dual federalism. At issue was a five-day waiting period to purchase a handgun. While the Court was not overly concerned about the waiting period itself, it ruled that requiring local law enforcement officials to perform background checks on potential gun buyers was improper. In its decision, the Court declared:

The federal government may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, nor command the states' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty (see Printz v. U.S.).

Whether or not the Court continues to rely on this interpretation of federalism in future cases, however, remains to be seen.

Given the narrow vote margins in many recent federalism cases, the future of federalism is likely to be impacted significantly by the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. President Bush has appointed two Supreme Court Justices (including the new Chief Justice John Roberts) who are generally believed to be conservative on federalism and states’ rights issues. If a Democratic president had been elected, he may have appointed more liberal justices who would have been inclined to reverse the trend toward the reestablishment of dual federalism.