Pros and Cons of Federalism | Power and Politics in US Government 6 of 30 | Study Hall
Summary
TLDRLa vidéo explore le fédéralisme aux États-Unis, en examinant comment le partage du pouvoir entre le gouvernement national et les États affecte les politiques sur des questions comme l'avortement, l'éducation et l'environnement. Elle discute des avantages, tels que l'adaptation des lois locales aux besoins des citoyens, et des inconvénients, comme les disparités économiques entre États. Des exemples historiques et actuels, comme le cas Griswold v. Connecticut ou le débat sur l'Affordable Care Act, illustrent les défis d'un tel système. Enfin, la vidéo encourage à s'informer et à agir sur les politiques publiques.
Takeaways
- 📜 La pilule contraceptive est apparue aux États-Unis en 1960, mais sa vente et son utilisation étaient encore illégales dans certains États.
- ⚖️ L'affaire Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) a établi le droit à la confidentialité des couples mariés concernant la contraception.
- 🏛️ Le fédéralisme américain divise le pouvoir entre le gouvernement national et les gouvernements des États, entraînant parfois des conflits.
- 🔄 Le débat sur les « droits des États » est en plein essor au 21e siècle, illustrant les défis du partage du pouvoir.
- 🌍 Les différences de politiques entre les États américains peuvent conduire à des réalités très différentes pour les résidents.
- 👩⚖️ L'avortement est un exemple marquant de dévolution, où le pouvoir de légiférer est transféré du gouvernement fédéral aux États.
- 🔑 Le fédéralisme est perçu comme un avantage car il permet aux politiques des États de mieux représenter les opinions locales.
- 📉 Les critiques du fédéralisme soulignent que cela peut encourager une « course vers le bas » avec des États qui réduisent les taxes et les protections sociales pour attirer les entreprises.
- 🤝 Les États utilisent des accords interétatiques pour gérer les biens communs comme l'eau et l'air, mais ceux-ci ne sont pas toujours efficaces.
- ⚖️ Le débat sur l'équilibre entre les pouvoirs des États et du gouvernement fédéral reste un enjeu central aux États-Unis.
Q & A
Qu'est-ce que le fédéralisme dans le contexte du système politique des États-Unis?
-Le fédéralisme est un système politique dans lequel le pouvoir est partagé entre un gouvernement national et des gouvernements d'État. Aux États-Unis, cela signifie que certaines compétences sont exercées par le gouvernement fédéral tandis que d'autres sont laissées aux États ou au peuple, conformément au 10ème amendement.
Pourquoi les fondateurs des États-Unis ont-ils rejeté un système unitaire de gouvernement?
-Les fondateurs ont rejeté un système unitaire parce qu'ils voulaient éviter la concentration du pouvoir dans un gouvernement central, comme c'était le cas sous la domination britannique. Ils ont préféré un modèle qui répartissait le pouvoir entre plusieurs niveaux de gouvernement.
Quels étaient les défauts des Articles de la Confédération?
-Les Articles de la Confédération ont créé un gouvernement central très faible, laissant la plupart du pouvoir aux États, ce qui a conduit à des problèmes tels qu'un manque d'unité et d'efficacité pour résoudre les questions nationales.
Qu'est-ce que l'affaire Griswold v. Connecticut a établi en 1965?
-L'affaire Griswold v. Connecticut a établi que le droit à la vie privée protège les décisions intimes des couples mariés, notamment en ce qui concerne l'utilisation de la contraception, ce qui a invalidé une loi de l'État du Connecticut interdisant son usage.
Comment la décision Roe v. Wade a-t-elle affecté le droit à l'avortement aux États-Unis?
-La décision Roe v. Wade de 1973 a statué qu'une loi du Texas interdisant l'avortement était inconstitutionnelle car elle violait le droit à la vie privée. Cependant, la Cour a également reconnu que les États pouvaient imposer certaines restrictions pour protéger la santé des femmes et la vie prénatale.
Comment la décision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization a-t-elle changé le cadre juridique de l'avortement aux États-Unis en 2022?
-La décision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization a annulé la décision Roe v. Wade, affirmant qu'il n'y a pas de droit constitutionnel à l'avortement. Elle a renvoyé la régulation de l'avortement aux États, entraînant des divergences importantes dans les lois sur l'avortement.
Quels sont les avantages du fédéralisme selon ses partisans?
-Les partisans du fédéralisme estiment qu'il permet aux États de créer des politiques qui reflètent mieux les valeurs et les préférences locales, et qu'il encourage l'innovation politique. Cela permet aussi une gouvernance plus proche des citoyens, qui peuvent influencer les politiques au niveau local.
Qu'est-ce que le concept de « course vers le bas » dans le cadre du fédéralisme?
-La « course vers le bas » se réfère à la tendance des États à réduire les impôts et les protections des travailleurs pour attirer les entreprises, ce qui peut compromettre la sécurité des travailleurs et diminuer le financement des services publics essentiels.
Comment le fédéralisme influence-t-il les politiques en matière d'environnement?
-Le fédéralisme peut rendre difficile la résolution des problèmes environnementaux, car les ressources comme l'air et l'eau traversent les frontières des États. Les États peuvent également chercher à transférer leurs responsabilités environnementales à d'autres États ou au gouvernement fédéral.
Qu'est-ce que l'innovation politique dans le contexte du fédéralisme?
-L'innovation politique dans le fédéralisme fait référence à la capacité des États à expérimenter des politiques avant qu'elles ne soient adoptées au niveau national, comme c'est le cas avec la légalisation du cannabis dans certains États ou le revenu universel de base en Alaska.
Outlines
💊 L'histoire complexe de la contraception aux États-Unis
Le premier paragraphe discute l'évolution du contrôle des naissances aux États-Unis, en se concentrant sur la commercialisation de la pilule contraceptive en 1960, malgré les lois étatiques qui l'interdisaient encore dans certains endroits comme le Connecticut. Des activistes comme Estelle Griswold ont défié ces lois, menant à une décision de la Cour suprême en 1965 qui a affirmé le droit à la vie privée des couples mariés en matière de contraception. Cela met en lumière la complexité du partage du pouvoir entre les gouvernements national et étatiques aux États-Unis.
⚖️ L'impact du fédéralisme sur l'avortement
Ce paragraphe explique comment la décision de la Cour suprême en 2022 dans l'affaire Dobbs a rendu le droit à l'avortement une question entièrement régulée par les États. Chaque État adopte des politiques diverses allant d'une interdiction totale à une absence de restrictions. Cette variation des politiques reflète une forme de décentralisation (devolution) et souligne les avantages et inconvénients du fédéralisme dans la gestion des politiques publiques, en particulier sur des questions sensibles comme l'avortement.
🇺🇸 Les avantages et inconvénients du fédéralisme aux États-Unis
Ce paragraphe explore les avantages et les inconvénients du fédéralisme américain. Il met en avant les divers pouvoirs confiés aux États, comme dans la justice pénale, la santé ou l'éducation, tout en soulignant que le fédéralisme permet aux États de mener des expérimentations politiques (policy diffusion). Cependant, il souligne aussi les inégalités qui en résultent, par exemple, dans les domaines de l'accès aux soins de santé ou de la justice sociale, ainsi que la possibilité d'un 'race to the bottom' économique entre États.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Fédéralisme
💡Amendement Dixième
💡Griswold v. Connecticut
💡Roe v. Wade
💡Dévolution
💡Droits des États
💡Course vers le bas
💡Diffusion des politiques
💡Compacte inter-étatique
💡Tiebout sorting
Highlights
Study Hall offers online courses to earn college credits.
The history of birth control in the U.S. is complicated.
In 1960, the birth control pill hit the U.S. market, but selling contraception was still illegal in some states.
In Connecticut, using contraception like the pill was illegal, with penalties including jail time and fines.
In 1965, the Supreme Court decided that Connecticut's contraception ban infringed on the privacy of married couples.
The balance between state and federal power has been an issue since the U.S. was founded.
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had different views on federal vs. state power, leading to the federalist system in place today.
The U.S. moved from a confederation, under the Articles of Confederation, to a federation with more centralized power.
States make their own laws on issues like abortion, education, and the environment, leading to policy differences.
Federalism allows states to experiment with different policies, leading to innovations like Alaska’s universal basic income.
People and businesses can move to states with policies that align with their values, a process known as Tiebout sorting.
Federalism can create economic disparities between states, such as in healthcare access and quality.
The Affordable Care Act faced significant pushback from states, leaving millions without insurance.
Interstate compacts allow states to collaborate on issues like emergency responses and transportation.
Federalism is a trade-off, balancing state and federal power, with ongoing debates about issues like abortion and healthcare.
Transcripts
To learn more about earning college credits with Study Hall courses go
to gostudyhall.com or click the link in the description.
Even though people have been having children (or not) for literally,
ever, even just the recent history of birth control is convoluted.
The birth control pill hit the US market in 1960 even though selling contraception was still
illegal in some states. And in Connecticut, even using contraceptives like the pill was
illegal. You risked a minimum of 60 days in jail, a big fine, or both if you got caught.
But activists had been frustrated by this law for years. And in 1961 local
Planned Parenthood Executive Director Estelle Griswold, and C. Lee Buxton,
Chair of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Yale,
opened a clinic to test the contraception ban. Aaaand they got arrested, to no one's surprise.
So the case went to the Supreme Court and in 1965, they decided that the Connecticut
law — which was from 1879 by the way — infringed on the privacy of married couples.
This goes to show how complicated power sharing between the national
and subnational governments can be. We have Connecticut making its own laws,
but the federal government being the ultimate decider on what’s constitutional or not.
And the “state’s rights” concept is having a 21st century revival. Which
highlights how power sharing can create challenges both for the people living in
the US and the government trying its best to meet people’s needs.
So in this episode, we’ll be talking about the advantages and disadvantages
of having a federalist system where power is divided between the national
government and the states. And ask, is this really a good way to organize a government?
Hi! I'm Dave Jorgenson and this is Study Hall: Power and Politics in US Government.
The balance between state and federal power was something that even the Founders struggled
with. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were once besties, but when it came down to it,
bestie Adams favored a strong federal government, while bestie Jefferson was
a champion of states’ rights. And that kept them from seeing eye to eye on how
they thought the country should be run, and ultimately led to the system we have today.
When the US broke away from England, the Founders wanted to avoid creating a unitary system of
government. That’s because unitary systems have one central government with all the authority,
which clearly didn’t work out great when we were part of the more unitary British government.
Under the Articles of Confederation, we tried to have a confederation, which is
when there’s a very weak central government. And in our case, the states had most of the power.
But the Articles created a laundry list of problems, which you can learn about in our
episode breaking them down. So we moved to a federation where there’s a trade-off between
the national and subnational governments. The US Constitution clearly states the roles of
the federal government, and everything else is left up to the states or the people to decide.
Now, it just takes a quick glance at the news to see how big the differences in state
government policies can be on issues like education, abortion, and the environment.
Take Florida, for example, which as of 2023 has been pushing against diversity, equity,
Disney World, and inclusion programs at state colleges.
This reflects the growing divide in policies between red states,
where voters tend to vote for Republicans, like Florida in the 2020s — and blue states,
where people tend to vote for Democrats. And unlike what’s happened in Florida,
colleges in blue states are offering more classes and degrees related to DEI than ever before.
And this matters because bigger differences mean bigger challenges to our federalist system.
Federalism allows our states to make different policy choices, which can create very different
realities for the people living across the US. So it’s worth understanding how we got
here and how these challenges are being fought out between the different levels of government.
Like take abortion. In order to understand abortion law in the US, we have to know a little
bit about privacy, which at least when it comes to the Constitution, is kinda hard to define.
But we have to start here because growing out of the Griswold case we mentioned earlier,
the Supreme Court established that our right to
privacy protects intimate and personal decisions, like getting an abortion.
But, the US Constitution didn’t explicitly mention a right to privacy. So the justices
who made that connection did so through something called penumbras, or when one group of rights is
protected by the fact that it’s similar to other rights that are protected in the Constitution.
So the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments all hint that certain things
are private through guarantees of “zones of privacy.” And then the Ninth Amendment,
which guarantees we have rights other than those listed in the Constitution, swoops in,
and the Fourteenth sometimes shows up as well. For fun!
Anyway, the Court interpreted all of this as meaning we have a right to privacy.
Which is how in the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut case, married people
nationwide got the right to contraception regardless of what their state laws said.
Then, in 1973, The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Roe v. Wade. They decided that a
Texas law banning abortion was unconstitutional because it infringed upon the right to privacy,
which included choosing to abort a pregnancy since it’s inside your own body.
But, they also held that the right to an abortion has to be balanced with
the state’s goal of protecting pregnant peoples’ health and prenatal life. So
that meant states could continue imposing some restrictions on getting an abortion,
even if there was a Constitutional right to privacy — and bodily autonomy.
Then in 2022, the Supreme Court decided in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
that there was no constitutional right to an abortion. And absent any national law,
the authority to regulate abortion became entirely up to the states.
States have actually always regulated abortions somewhat differently from each other,
both before and after the Roe decision. But now, those differences have become drastic,
ranging from a virtual total ban to being completely unrestricted.
This is an example of devolution, or when power or policy authority shifts
away from the central government and toward the state or local government. It makes the
states more important than they’ve been in decades in shaping policy.
So the issue of abortion shows us what can happen when we have a diverse set of
policies from state to state, and how federal laws can either place limits on state laws,
or relax those limits, according to Supreme Court decisions. But this isn’t exclusive to abortion,
and having different state policies is both a pro and a con of federalism.
The US is very large and very diverse. It’s way too big for federal policies to reflect
everyone’s individual opinions. So the fact that states can have different policies that
better represent the people who live there is often viewed as a big pro of federalism.
Because of the Tenth Amendment, states are the main authority over things that
affect our everyday lives. Things like criminal justice, healthcare,
education, and morality choices like gambling, prostitution, abortion, the death penalty,
and more. It’s the kind of stuff we tend to feel pretty strongly about.
But while the hundreds of millions people in the US can’t get a hold of the President to share
their personal opinions, the much smaller number of people in local districts can more easily
reach their state and local representatives. I mean, technically you could call him tho, right?
Hello? Dave, how did you get this number?!
He got my number again!
Representatives care a lot about getting re-elected so the more people who call,
the more pressure is added. And that’s a great way to create policy change.
And having different states with different policies can actually filter up to the
national level. We talked about bottom-up federalism in our episode on marijuana,
where more and more states are legalizing it for personal use. Which could lead to
national policy change since the majority of Americans support legalization in some
capacity. Federalism is what allows this kind of innovation to happen at all.
States can experiment within the limits of their state laws and constitutions,
and other states can copy that model if they want to, through a process called
policy diffusion. Like how Alaska has had a form of universal basic income since 1982,
meaning they cut every resident a check once per year. The money comes from the state’s mine, oil,
and gas revenues, and has helped to reduce poverty by up to 20%.
The diverse policies in different states also allow people to choose to live somewhere that
aligns with their personal values. Tiebout sorting is when people and
businesses move to jurisdictions that provide the services they want or need,
at a tax rate they like. Wanna use marijuana recreationally? States
like California or Colorado await. Wanna not pay sales taxes? You should check out
Oregon. Do you want a bad football team? Go to Nebraska. Just kidding, Go Big Red!
But on the flip side, not everyone can afford to “vote with their
feet” by moving. And federalism has just as many cons as pros.
Critics argue that federalism encourages states to prioritize helping businesses over their own
residents. Some states actually intentionally keep their tax rates low to attract businesses.
This practice is called a race to the bottom. Like if states under-provide public services,
they can offer special benefits to people who start or grow businesses
there. Retirees love Florida’s lack of an individual income tax,
and families often move to states or cities with better schools for their kids.
States can also weaken worker protections or reduce payroll taxes to benefit their bottom
line. But this compromises worker safety and pay, and leads to underfunded unemployment programs.
And all of this “racing to the bottom” leads to stark economic disparities between states.
Like how there are huge differences in healthcare access, cost, and quality.
Federalism can also jeopardize or block federal attempts at solving issues that affect everyone
in the country. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, attempted to make health
insurance available to more people. But it was immediately met with pushback by several
states, leaving over 25 million people without insurance over a decade later.
Diverse opinions don’t just lead to different state policies,
though. They can also lead to issues with how we collectively problem-solve.
When it comes to sharing goods like rivers and clean air,
they’re shared across state lines and with Indigenous communities. There’s always
increasing demand and a limited supply which everyone is then competing for.
One solution is interstate compacts, which allow states to coordinate with
each other to achieve common goals and avoid depleting shared goods.
There are around 200 existing interstate compacts that also cover things like emergency responses
and transportation. So if there’s an emergency near a border, both states will usually respond.
A lot of people commute around New York City, so New York and New Jersey put their differences
aside to create the Port Authority using an interstate compact to make transportation
between the states easier. But it still costs me 17 dollars to go two miles so you win, you lose.
Still, interstate compacts aren’t perfect. Not all interstate issues are addressed by
compacts, and enforcement may be lacking for some existing ones.
And states have also shown a tendency to burden-shift in order to force
responsibility onto another state… or even the federal government. States
can put stuff like power plants near windy borders so that the pollution
is blown out of their jurisdiction. And unless the federal government steps in,
businesses that are competing for investment might not work to reduce their pollution at all.
So what it really boils down to is that Federalism is a trade-off. The
balance between state and federal power has been an issue since day
one in the US. And it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere anytime soon.
If anything, the debate about what role the states versus the federal government should play is the
most intense it’s been since the civil rights movement. Topics like abortion, the environment,
healthcare, and education are the kinds of things we expect politicians to talk about on
the debate stage, and they’re what motivate us to cast our ballots come election time.
So there’s no better time than now to inform ourselves and do what we can
to make our policies, both federal and state, reflect what we actually want.
If you’re enjoying Study Hall Power and Politics in US Government and
are interested in taking an online course and earning college credit, go to gostudyhall.com
or click on the button to learn more. Thanks for watching, see you next time!
関連動画をさらに表示
‘They celebrated’: UNRWA staff caught praising Hamas for October 7 massacre
Améliorer le service public, c'est possible ! | Olivier Ryckewaert | TEDxLaRochelle
The Articles of Confederation and the Northwest Ordinance
Is the EU democratic? Part 3 - Representation in the European Parliament | #EUDemocracyExplained
Quelle géopolitique des entreprises ?
HGGSP PREMIERE : TRACER DES FRONTIÈRES, APPROCHE GÉOPOLITIQUE
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)