Write a reflective response (4-5 sentences each) to each of the three prompts below.
1. Kettl claims that federalism’s strength is its “enormous flexibility – its ability to adapt to new problems and political pressures.” Do you agree with this claim? Is flexibility a strength of federalism?
2. Kettl spends a lot of time discussing the federal government’s use of grants as one way to impose its will on the states. Do you think it’s fair that the federal government places strict rules and restrictions on grants, particularly those requirements not related to the purpose of the grant, that states must follow to receive the money? Is this a fair way for the federal government to impose its will or is it infringing upon the rights of state governments to govern themselves?
3. If you could change one aspect of the
constitutional design of federalism, what would you change and why? How would
you balance state power and federal power?
To add your reply, click "add a new discussion topic," type your response to each of the questions, and then make sure to click "post to forum." Then, check out some of your fellow classmate's responses and make sure to reply (as discussed in the syllabus) to at least two of your classmates' responses before 6/11.
2. I do think it is fair that the federal government puts restrictions on grants. This will ultimately ensure that the money given to the state is used in the way that it has been intended for. Furthermore, it keeps state politicians honest in what they will do with the money since that is what dictates whether they will receive the money or not. I also think it is a fair way to impose the federal government's will on states. If the states are going to ask for money from the federal government, they should follow the rules that are given to them. If you ask for money from your parents your parents at least want to make sure that you are going to use the money in the right way and for the right cause.
3. I would give a more clear understanding of what states' rights are and what is actually considered to be states' rights. It seems like states' rights are very flimsy and can be interpreted differently. Which is why McCulloch V. Maryland happened in the first place. There are varying interpretations of States' rights making it difficult to fight nationalization. I am thankful for checks and balances to keep State and Federal governments from becoming too powerful. However, with nationalization rising, I feel some of that power needs to be brought back to the states. To restore balance, clear interpretations of states' rights must be set.