Summer '22 - Intro to American Government & Politics

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?

- i think that if the world is to grow and improve it must be flexible. because the times and the situations are constantly evolving around us and has things change we must be able to change the rules and regulations so that things are allowed to change but without no checks and balances.

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?

- Conditions on financing, I believe, are acceptable for the federal government to set. This will ensure that the funds provided to the government are utilized for the purposes intended.because funds are monitorized and regulated they receive the money or not, it keeps state authorities honest about their intentions. I also feel that enforcing the federal government's will on states is a legitimate strategy.if money is wanted to help the state than that means they will have to follow rules and regulations whether or not they follow the rules show if they will receive funding

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?

- if i could modify the constitutional design of federalism i would do so by allowing more freedom of state power. while they cannot go against laws they shalt to be allowed to create guidelines within those that reflect certain states community fits. because within each region and community are different religious feelings and personal that make each state unique. like gambling where some states allow it and some do not.

1. Federalism can adapt to new problems and political issues, as Kettl claims. Federalism flexibility was displayed during the beginning of the Covid pandemic. The government gave out stimulus checks, provided free tests, and extended increased unemployment funds. Flexibility is a strength of federalism because it allows the system always finds a way to give the state assistance when necessary. 

2. It is fair that the federal government places strict rules and regulations on grants. The government provides states with large sums of money or resources when grants are provided. Restrictions are necessary because they prohibit people from misusing their newfound financial power. The state only imposes its will when it is best for the country and required; therefore, it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of states to govern themselves. 

3. If I could change one aspect of the constitutional design of federalism, I would reduce the state's power. The states have too much power, which limits the government’s ability to provide what’s best for the people at times. The state and the government are not always going to see eye to eye, but the states should not get to be harsher than the government. The way it is written in the constitution, the states can go against laws mandated by the state if it is the desire of the people. The ability of the states to have so much power is harmful due to the bias and corruption that may come with newfound financial leverage due to grants.

2. I do think that it is fair for the federal government to place rules and restrictions on grants. It insures that the state and local governments are not abusing their power. It also ensures that the money is going towards what it is intended for and is not being overspent. It is an important compromise, and it guarantees that national goals are achieved. 

3. I would make it so that there is more clarity about what powers the state and local governments have. I think that flexibility in the system is important. However, I think that there is too much conflict caused by the lack of clarity about what issues belong to state and local governments. Overall, I think that there needs to be better communication. 

1. I agree that one of federalism’s key strengths is its flexibility. It gives our government the ability to best suit the needs of each individual area of the country. This system allows for state and local governments to be able to represent and make laws specific to their specific citizens better than a large, unified national government could. While this flexibility allows these differences in local laws, it still allows the national government to have supreme jurisdiction over state governments. This unique system benefits from this flexibility. 

2.  I think that the use of rules and restrictions on states can at times be used by the federal government to bully state governments into following a national agenda. This unfair situation can lead to the federal government pulling certain funding from states if they do not comply with how the national government wants them to govern. I think while in theory, it seems fair for the national government to be able to put rules on how its own money is spent, ultimately this seems like it could do more harm than good, by infringing on the states' rights to govern themselves. 

3. I think that in today’s day and age, more power needs to be restored to state governments. The federal government present day has gained far more power than the founding fathers had ever intended it to have. With how diverse our country has become and how different regions are from each other, I think it is important to balance power back to the states so that their people are better represented.

2. I disagree and agree with the use of grants in this way. It allows the federal government to undermine or bribe state officials to follow or "obey" in a way that benefits the federal government's plan. We saw this when the legal drinking age was changed from 18 to 21 when it was a state's choice to change the law, but the federal government wanted it to be a national change. For the states that pushed back on the law change, the national government held that states funding for things such as roads, etc. until they voted in favor of the national government's demands. But this can also be used to promote a state's desire to vote in favor of social problems such as civil rights. The use of grants depends on if it is used in harming and undermining, or promoting and helping states. 

3. If I were to change any aspect of federalism, it would be for the people to fight or defend our cases against officials, much like a trial with a jury before any radical or large policy changes, such as the threat to women's rights at the moment. If states could allow for the people to gather and fight for their rights before allowing them to vote on them, it could possibly persuade them before they make choices that impact people and their lives directly. This would be primarily for state and local government officials. This would be "for the people". Also, no laws should be made with an argument backed by religion for the separation, and church and state have already been written in the constitution.

1. I agree with Kettl that flexibility can be a strength of Federalism, but I think it can also be a weakness. Flexibility allows our government to move quickly to solve problems as they arise, but it can also leave a lot of room for inconsistencies across the country. Kettl discusses how states handled enforcing federal laws prohibiting marijuana vastly different. I believe is unfair that some nonviolent offenders would get a harsher punishment than others under the same national law simply because they were in different states. However, different states have differing issues dependent on population or environment, so the flexibility Federalism allows is beneficial for the states to best serve its citizens more directly.

2. I agree that it is fair that the federal government place rules and restrictions on grants, since it is the nation’s money and not only a certain state’s. I like the example Kettl provided about the “urban renewal” projects funded by national grants. The grants allowed for the beautification, expansion, and progress of cities to be funded when it was not a priority for state or local governments but was a priority for citizens. Overall, when used for improving citizens’ quality of life, grants are a good way for the federal government to impose its will, it can also infringe upon the rights of state governments to coerce them into conforming into the national agenda.

3. If I could change one aspect of the constitutional design of federalism, I would give less power to the government, both state and national, and give individual people more of a voice. While I agree with the premise of our representative democracy, there is no reason to split votes by county instead of by the popular vote. The electoral college causes a lot of confusion for the average voter, and with how far technology and vote-counting systems have come, our country should allow every vote to count with the same weight. I do not believe states need more rights over their people with less government input, because this could further polarize the country and cause people to move states.

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.

2- I think it is fair that rules are placed on grants. However, I think the strictness of these rules and requirements should depend on the amount of money and what the grant is going towards. The requirements should also have to have some type of relationship to the topic of the grant. In my opinion, rules are necessary when dealing with money but, I do think that sometimes these rules can be used for alternative motives. Hence leading to the states carrying out what the federal government wants in order to obtain the grant money.

3- If I could change one aspect of Federalism, I would change the speed at which all decisions take place. I think power should vary depending on the situation. Yes, checks and balances need to be in place so that one government isn’t allotted too much but when dealing with worldwide issues, the federal government needs to be able to grab hold of the handlebar and steer us in the clear. In the same way that when a state is experiencing a disaster of any sort that is affecting their people directly, then they should be able to swiftly deal with it without jumping through the hoops of the federal government. I do think that states should be responsible for their citizens and should be able to make decisions based on the wants and needs of their people. 

2. I think in most situations block grants and matching grants are constitutional and fair because the state has the option to take the money or not. Some argue that federal grants for issues of health care is overstepping boundaries and that federal government should not be allowed to fund health care. I do not believe it is fair for the government to attach stipulations on a grant that are not related to the purpose of the grant, or that will require more funding. In the case of the education funding, a state may not accept the grant for education because they do not have enough funds to provide ADA accommodations that the grant requires. This would put the state at an educational disadvantage because they are not receiving the grant to better school systems. The elastic clause specifically denotes passing of laws that are necessary and proper, and these grants are a way that the federal government will be able to impose their power outside of constitutional stipulations. 

3. I think that by changing the supremacy clause and elastic clause to apply only to times of national emergency (natural disaster, pandemics, war) this would allow for more state autonomy and reduce the risk of excess centralized power. I think that they way the government is organized, in theory, works really well, but I also think that the legislative branch has grown to have a lot of power, and I think that more checks need to be put in place. I also think that polarization from political parties has tarnished Federalism especially in modern America, but that likely has to do with increased media coverage. Overall, I think that states should be given more power and autonomy and this would be done by taking away some of the power from the federal government.