Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Federalism Timeline

No description

Hudson Lee

on 2 October 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Federalism Timeline

Federalism Timeline
Ben Kaplan
Hudson Lee
Jeff Dickinson
Matt Calbo
Cameron Berger
Increasing State Power
Increasing Federal Power
Articles of Confederation
The Constitutional Convention
Constitutional Convention
The Elastic Clause
Gibbons v. Ogden
The Civil War
Formation of Land-Grant Colleges
Institution of Federal Income Tax
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Tuesday, Jan. 7, 1964
Election of Ronald Reagan
January 20, 1981
Development of the Department of Homeland Security
The Supremacy Clause
New Deal
Development of the Department of Homeland Security
September 22, 2001
Development of the Department of Homeland Security
September 22, 2001
The Supremacy Clause
No Child Left Behind
No Child Left Behind
Virginia and Kentucky
Fletcher v. Peck
Gave the people more rights, decreasing the power of the federal government to make legislature that limits citizens.
Fear of state powers following the defeat of the Confederate States of America allowed the Federal Government the opportunity to increase its power.

Fear of the conditions of the country under the Articles of Confederation allowed for the Constitution to give the federal government several powers previously unavailable to it.
The fear of more terrorist attacks following the events of 9/11 allowed the federal government to establish the Department of Homeland Security to investigate possible terrorist events and suspects.
McCulloch v. Maryland
Fear of the conditions of the country under the Articles of Confederation allowed for the Constitution to give the federal government several powers previously unavailable to it.
Election of Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan believed the federal government had grown too large and that more power should be given back to the states. He spent most of his presidency attempting to implement these ideals

FDR's New Deal yielded perhaps the greatest increase in the power of the national government since the transition from the Articles to the Constitution. By creating new programs like Social Security, the federal government gained power, and also signaled the change from dual to cooperative federalism
Land-Grant Colleges are colleges provided by the individual states with federal funding. The states are given money to do what they wish in terms of providing college educations to its citizens, which allows states a large amount of power over its institutions.

Brown v. Board of Education
This allowed the Federal Government the ability to draw funds off of the people’s income and hold more power through a greater amount of money.
This act forces companies to list their benefactors before getting federal funding or approval, which gives the federal government the ability to determine who they approve of getting funding.
Law Enforcement Assistance Act
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Tenth Amendment
Allowed the federal government more control than the states in terms of commerce.

Dred Scott v. Sandford
Women's Voting in Wyoming
California's Constitution
Institution of the Federal
Income Tax
Gitlow v. New York
Court ruled that the first Amendment
applies to all states and can only be taken away if it would cause a situation of potential danger, which can be decided by the states.
Under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the federal government lacks the power to regulate education. However, NCLB grants the federal government the ability to do this, giving it new powers alongside jurisdictions that were previously unreachable
Washington’s Budget Surplus
of the late 1800s
The Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson
and deemed that all facilities must
be desegregated, the states can no
longer choose. Separate but equal
is unconstitutional.
New York v. United States
Pure Food
and Drug Act
Court decided that the Commerce Clause lets Congress have access to all radioactive waste disposal sites, even if controlled by the state.
Plessy vs. Ferguson
Court ruled that the implied powers let Congress create a national bank if it is to benefit the nation, and states cannot impede them.
Women were given suffrage in Wyoming, contrary to the rest of the nation, and kept the franchise under the Wyoming State Constitution.
Ruled that blacks were not citizens and could not sue, also that state of slavery would depend on the state of residency. Narrowed the scope of federal power and increased states'
Cabell v. Chavez-Salido
By requiring that all food and drugs were to be inspected before being made available to the public, and by mandating that all level of law enforcement obey the requirement, the federal government increased its power by giving it the ability to regulate an aspect of life that had previously been left without regulation.
Upheld state law that stopped aliens from being probation officers because it was one of the exceptions in the Equal Protection Act.
Works Cited
"ALDEN V. MAINE." ALDEN V. MAINE. N.p., 31 Mar. 1999. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-436.ZS.html>.
"Brown v. Board of Education." Brown v. Board of Education. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0347_0483_ZS.html>.
"Cabell v. Chavez-Salido." Cabell v. Chavez-Salido. N.p., 03 Nov. 1981. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0454_0432_ZS.html>.
"Civil War Timeline." CivilWar.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://www.civilwar.com/index.php/timeline/147398-timeline.html>.
"Constitutional Convention and Ratification, 1787-1789." U.S. Department of State: Office of the Historian. U.S. Federal Government, n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013.
"Creation of the Department of Homeland Security." Dhs.gov. U.S. Federal Government, n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <http://www.dhs.gov/creation-department-homeland-security>.
"Federalism Timeline." Timeline Maker. Lightstone Software LLC, 2013. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.
"FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION v. SOUTH CAROLINA PORTS AUTHORITY." Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina Ports Authority. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_01_46>.
"GITLOW v. NEW YORK." Gitlow v. New York. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1922/1922_19>.
"Hoke v. United States - 227 U.S. 308 (1913)." Justia US Supreme Court Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/227/308/case.html>.
"Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions." Infoplease. Infoplease, 2012. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.
"McCulloch v. Maryland." McCulloch v. Maryland. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0017_0316_ZS.html>.
"Morrill Act (1862)." OurDocuments.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=33>.
"New Federalism." New Federalism. CC-BY-SA, 2013. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.
"PALKO v. CONNECTICUT." Palko v. Connecticut. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1937/1937_135>.
"Plessy v. Ferguson – Case Brief Summary." Lawnix Free Case Briefs RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://www.lawnix.com/cases/plessy-ferguson.html>.
"Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)." Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). N.p., 27 June 1997. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html>.
"RENO v. CONDON." Reno v. Condon. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_1464>.
"Roe v. Wade – Case Brief Summary." Lawnix Free Case Briefs RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://www.lawnix.com/cases/roe-wade.html>.
"Sherman Antitrust Act." Infoplease. Infoplease, 2005. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.
"UNITED STATES v. CALIFORNIA." United States v. California. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_5_orig>.
"United States v. Lopez." United States v. Lopez. N.p., 08 Nov. 1994. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0514_0549_ZS.html>.
"UNITED STATES v. MORRISON." United States v. Morrison. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_5/>.
"WESBERRY v. SANDERS." Wesberry v. Sanders. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_22>.
"WOW Museum: Western Women's Suffrage - Wyoming." WOW Museum: Western Women's Suffrage - Wyoming. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.
“16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Federal Income Tax (1913)."OurDocuments.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=57>.
Freidel, Frank, and Hugh Sidney. "Ronald Reagan." WhiteHouse.gov. U.S. Federal Government, n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/ronaldreagan>.
Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar09.html>.
Katz, Ellis. "AMERICAN FEDERALISM, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE." N.p., Apr. 1997. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.
McCluskey, Neal. "Cato Policy Report." Cato Institute. N.p., Nov.-Dec. 2007. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.
PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/personality/landmark_korematsu.html>
U.S. Constitution. Art.I, Sec. 8.
United States. Cong. House. Archives,gov. 88th Cong., 2nd sess. HR 7152. U.S. Federal Government, n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013.
United States. Cong. Senate. Senate Judiciary. GovTrack.us. By Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Grassley, and Tom Harkin. 113th Cong., 1st sess. S 1465. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013.
Waxman, Matthew C. "National Security Federalism in the Age of Terror." - Volume 64, Issue 2. N.p., Feb. 2012. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.
Waxman, Seth P. "Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW." Site. Digital Commons, 2002. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.
Widerquist, Karl. "A Voting Paradox and the Budget Deficit." A Voting Paradox and the Budget Deficit. N.p., after 1997. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.

United States v. Lopez
Federal regulation of firearms possession near schools was unconstitutional, as it did not have to do with economics or commerce.
Printz v. United States
Plessy vs. Ferguson was a court case in 1896. Plessy, black, was arrested for breaking the Louisiana statue of separate but equal facilities, and filed a petition against the court of Louisiana and Ferguson, saying that these ideas are in violation with the 13th and 14th amendment. However, Plessy lost due to the thought that states are constitutionally allowed to create separate but equal facilities for people of different races, and that these facilities do not go against either the 13th or 14th amendment.
This case granted more power to the state governments.
Decided that the background checks for purchasing firearms under the Brady Act were unconstittional.
Alden v. Maine
Court ruled that Congress could not take away a state's right to immunity in its own court, allowing citizens to sue the state without their consent.
Hoke vs. United States
Hoke vs. United States was a Court Case in 1913. Hoke was attempting to persuade and move Annette Hays from New Orleans, Louisiana to Texas for the purpose of prostitution. The court ruled that the national government had the power to control commerce between states, even if it was the movement of people, as long as this movement was illegal. This increased the scope of power of the national government over interstate commerce and also gave to the federal government substantial policing power.
Palko vs. Connecticut
Palko vs. Connecticut increased state power, as it gave states the power to try criminals again as long as it was so that due process could be achieved. This meant that states could violate the restriction against double jeopardy as long as they were attempting to reach due process. Thus, through allowing states to ignore double jeopardy to get to due process, Palko vs. Connecticut increased the power of the States.

Americans with Disabilities Act
Sherman Anti-Trust Act
By stating that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the power of the federal government increases; it is granted specific powers to implement
Korematsu vs. United States
Nevada v. Hibbs
Do Not Call Law
The Supreme Court stated that it was not unconstitutional to create restrictions on one racial group that didn’t apply to others, since these laws were necessary for insuring domestic tranquility.
This Court case therefore allowed for the Federal government to make laws that may target one group of people over the other as long as it is for the protection of the general public.

United States vs. California
This court case increased the power of the federal government, as it gave the right to submerged land, including bays and other bodies of water within the coastline, to the federal government. It didn’t increase its power by much, but it gave the federal government more control over the states, as they now had control over some of the bays and other bodies of water adjoining the state to the sea. Thus, through allowing the United States to have possession of submerged land adjacent to the states, federal power was increased.
September 11, 2001
Wesberry vs. Sanders

This case increased the power of the federal government. Through stating that Georgia’s system of had to be changed in order for all citizens to have a more equal representation in the state, the federal government was expanding its powers. The Court ruled that congressional districts were to be determined by population; federal power increased through this new, more accurate system of representation.
Roe v. Wade
This case increased the power of the federal government as it allowed for the federal government to declare state laws void if they infringed a personal rights, such as right to privacy or right to free speech. It also allowed for the national government to declare all state laws regarding the restriction of abortion null and void.

This act was based upon the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The federal government was also given the power to dissipate trusts, which it couldn't
do prior to the act being implemented
104th Congress
Reno vs. Condon
Congress passed the Driver Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA), which stated that information collected by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) could not be given out without the driver’s consent. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that this law was constitutional, as it regulated commerce under the Commerce Clause and that the DPPA was a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power.
The ruling stated that the federal government could make laws that could overpower the state laws.

This gave the federal government the ability to draw funds off of the people’s income and hold more power, through increased opportunity for revenue.
United States vs. Morrison

This court case increased the power of the State. This is because the issue was not considered to be able to be solved at the national level, as no national laws could help Brzonkala prove her case. However, the justices felt that a remedy must be provided by the state. Thus, the Federal government was stating that it did not have the power to solve this issue and that the issue must be handed to the states.
Federal Maritime Commission(FMC) vs.
South Carolina Ports Authority(SCSPA)
This increased the power of the state governments. The court case stated that corporations that were an arm of the state government also were allowed immunity from the influence of independent companies. This upheld the sovereign immunity of the states.

These resolutions declared that the states had the right to declare the Constitutionality of actions taken by the federal government. Being able to determine this led to nullification, the right states have to declare any law null and void, a massive step for states' rights
Farming in the 1940s
Often in times of crisis, the federal government gains increased powers. In regards to the aftermath of 9/11, the federal government gained enhanced monitoring over the domestic tranquility of the nation, but at the expense of the people's privacy
In the 1940s, the federal government rationed food and set restrictions on wheat production, preventing low prices and surpluses. It exercised its control over the economy through the Commerce Clause.
State & Local Fiscal
Assistance Act
Money was given to the state and local governments in the form of block grants, increasing states' power through greater freedom of spending, in addition to financial support.
Unlike many other court cases following the devolution revolution, this one resulted in favor of the federal government, with the verdict being that the state of Nevada had disregarded the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.
Due to the end of the Civil War and the beginning of industry, the federal government had a surplus in their budget. They could spend this money as they pleased, thus giving them the ability to enact new policies and implement new change; these were enhancements to their current powers.
As federalism has demonstrated that "the only thing constant is change," it can be difficult to put emphasis on one specific aspect of where we currently fall on the federalism spectrum. That being said, a medium has been reached between those who have the power as granted in the Constitution, and those who have it as a byproduct of our political system. Many politicians from the devolution revolution are still advocates for returning power to the states, they often misrepresent what the people wants because of this. Many of the younger voters in the nation now favor more government involvement in the lives of the citizens, and so a conflict is struck between those who should have the power and those who actually do. Down the road, the young voters of today will likely gain a larger influence on the system of federalism, but for now, it is the politicians who may or may not even represent the general public that have most of the power.
The framers likely envisioned a government in which all aspects of it could effectively manage themselves; Federalist 51 discusses this point. This was was easily achievable, as with the Revolution still fresh on the minds of the civilians, few would want to jeopardize the status of the government. Another aspect of the government that the framers likely wanted was for it to be able to benefit the likes of themselves, with themselves, of course, being the upper class. This, too, was readily achievable, as much of the general population had little to no interest in politics, which made manipulating them in favor a select group of the population much easier. In the long run, the framers likely anticipated a government that would be able to sustain the values of which they had dedicated their lives to achieve, such as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If the framers were able to see the federal government as it is now, they would likely be both impressed and astonished. They would note the similarity in the sense that, as in their times, a select portion of the population has control over nearly all the rest, with those people potentially not even representing those who they are elected on behalf of. Also, They would likely be impressed that the Constitution that they drafted is almost entirely now as it was then. Despite the similarities, there would be even more differences between the federal governments of then and now. Most framers would be outraged by events such as the recent government shutdown, they would feel that the government was not doing its job of serving the people. Also, people like George Washington especially would become furious at the sight of what has developed as a result of political parties. The schism between the two parties would be an aspect of the government that would cause many of the framers to become irate. Finally, the framers would be nearly guaranteed to be astounded at the fact that “the common man” has such a large influence on politics. As they were used to a time when only a select few could essentially determine the decisions that were to be made, they would be shocked to see that so many different types of people were now able to vote. Alongside this, the amount of power that the states have since obtained might even scare them, as it would cause the resurfacing of bad memories that took place under the Articles of Confederation.
16th Amendment
This Amendment gave Congress permission to enact an income tax law, giving it considerable power to generate revenue from income taxes.
Through the lack strong, central government, the Articles strengthened the power of the states, effectively making them the head decision makers of the nation.
By stating the rights that California has as a state, it takes states' rights to a new level, as the states would now determine their rights, not the federal government.
The lack of a strong, central government under the articles left the states as the lead decision makers in the political system
Through stating that all powers not granted to the federal government are given to the states, the latter obtained significant policymaking power
By declaring a state law unconstitutional, the Constitution reestablishes itself as the supreme law of the land, thus granting power to the national government
By proclaiming its own rights, California took a large step direction of states' rights by saying that the federal government would no longer be the one to determine the responsibilities of a state
By restricting the input that the federal government could have on criminal trials, and by lessening the occurrence of unfunded mandates, the states became more powerful at the expnse of the federal
This law gave states the power to decide punishments for companies that called citizens on "Do Not Call" lists to telemarket.
The Supreme Court ruled that despite the federal government having control over interstate affairs, the states do get some say involving trade. This verdict increased the power of the states
The ADA set a federal standard for states to follow: discrimination against the handicapped in employment was forbidden.
Full transcript