do a case study of any one country on federalism

Case Studies

“the southern challenge”: contestatory federalism in india*.

Does contestation by subnational units help in maintaining or even enhancing federal practices? This contribution examines recent developments in India, specifically the role of southern states in questioning the practice of federalism, in particular against increasing centralisation. It argues that the southern states play an important role in challenging actions by the federal government and thus also highlight the inequities of the centralised Indian federation and lack of institutionalised fora for intergovernmental relations and centre-state dialogues.

Continue reading →

Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water: how not to misread an eu request about foreign judges at the constitutional court of bosnia and herzegovina.

The role of a Constitutional Court is central, even more so after a conflict in deeply divided societies. Foreign judges may strengthen the judicial independence, authority, and accountability of a court. However, the consideration of their role is strongly related to the context, including the role of the International Community. Experience suggests that there is positive potential for the use of foreign judges in stabilizing post-conflict situations; however, over time they may risk becoming a divisive factor themselves, as recently in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This, and the preparation for EU accession, makes it necessary (or at least advisable) to adapt their guarantee function, write Jens Woelk and Harun Išerić.

A Glimpse of Nepalese Federalism

Nepal has a long history of a unitary system in which the discourse of federalism was started by the ‘Moist People War’ (1996-2006); geared up by the United People’s Movement (April 2006); owned by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement/Accord (CPA) signed by the Maoists and the Government of Nepal (24 November 2006); established by the Madhesh Movement (2007); and codified by the Constitution of Nepal (2015) through the Constituent Assembly, ultimately. The Nepalese federalism has even adopted the core principles of republicanism, ethnic diversities, equality and non-discrimination, affirmative action, social inclusion, secularism, decentralization of state power and financial power, distribution of source of revenue, autonomy, self-rule, and shared rule, etc., among others. For this purpose, there are federal, provincial (7), and local levels governments (753) operating; several legal, institutional, procedural, and practical initiatives have been taken by the governments, and while some progress has been made, however, there are several remaining responsibilities yet to be addressed including the ‘traditional unitary mindset’ for localizing and sustaining federalism in the country.

Building Trust and Foundations for Fiscal Federalism in Conflict-affected Somalia

Somalia is a federal country with established Federal Member States (FMS). In the absence of a finalized constitution, a political settlement over power and resource allocation is lacking, leading to extra-constitutional negotiations.  A nascent federal system with a provisional constitution poses major constraints on the functioning of the government and citizens’ trust.  This includes inter alia the inability to provide services across the jurisdictions, conflict over limited resources, constrained human resources, election disputes, limited understanding of federalism, corruption, and clashes. A political settlement would help Somalia’s stabilization and sustainable development. The current political leaders have created avenues for political negotiations that help reach consensus on contentious issues. These avenues are laying the foundation for political dialogue, leading to compromise on many unresolved issues that are proving successful and a model for post-conflict settings.

American State Constitutions as Ordinary Law

Americans revere the United States Constitution and the Founders who created it, so they rarely amend the Constitution, and they rely on the United States Supreme Court to elaborate its meaning. But they have a very different relationship to their state constitutions. They regularly amend their state constitutions or replace them altogether, and they have no compunction about jettisoning what the constitutions’ founders created.  When they disagree with how a state court interprets the state constitution, they adopt amendments to overrule the judges or even vote them out of office. This dual constitutionalism encourages a distinctive political practice. Americans treat the U.S. Constitution as a repository of political principles, but they view their state constitutions as a species of ordinary law and use them rather than revere them, including in them provisions that could as easily be put in statutes. This facilitates popular control over government. The result is a system of dual constitutionalism that combines stability at the national level with dynamism at the state level, statements of fundamental principle at the national level with the vigor of popular input at the state level.

Decentralization in Armenia: Local Governance Reform and the Need for Functional Decentralization

Armenia has witnessed an impressive amount of local governance reforms, which have established larger, more functional and better financed municipalities. Yet, despite the successes established so far, further reform efforts will be needed. In addition to strengthening the financial capacities of municipalities, it will be vital to ensure that they are also capable of delivering direct services to the citizens. In order to do so, further reforms are needed, which focus on functional and fiscal decentralization. Furthermore, a proper decentralization strategic framework for the next phase of the local governance reform process should be developed by the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure (MTAI) in consultation with the municipalities and other stakeholders.

Monitoring American Federalism: The Overlooked Tool of Sounding the Alarm Interposition

One key feature of the U.S. Constitution – the concept of federalism – was unclear when it was introduced, and that lack of clarity threatened the Constitution’s ratification by those who feared the new government would undermine state sovereignty. Proponents of the new governmental framework were questioned about the underlying theory of the Constitution as well as how it would operate in practice, and their explanations produced intense and extended debate over how to monitor federalism.

In their famous defense of the Constitution in The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison described a monitoring role for state legislatures that anticipated the practice of interposition. Although never using the term “interposition” in their essays, Hamilton and Madison responded to opponents of the Constitution by arguing that state legislatures were uniquely situated to be the voice of the people who would sound the alarm if the general government exceeded its rightful authority. What originated as a debate-like response to opponents of ratification eventually took on a life of its own, producing a settled tradition of monitoring federalism by the states that has largely been overlooked and which laid the groundwork for future conversations about constitutional meaning and federalism’s balancing of powers. I explore these themes in Monitoring American Federalism: The History of State Legislative Resistance .

México: A Case for the Study of Federal Corporatization

With the purpose of projecting México towards the field of international federal comparisons, this text originates from the question: Which factors of federal corporatization are found in the Mexican case? It is important to highlight that the 19 th century signified an era of “radical federalism” for México. By contrast, two later phases of federal corporatization have developed, between 1930 and 2000, and after 2018. The stage from 2000 to 2018 was described as a conjunctural federal resurgence, due to the partisan alternation, the growth of decentralized spending and the discussion of specific policies in horizontal forums. With the resurgence of Mexican corporatization, two factors, with different levels of importance, can be confirmed: 1) the hegemonical party, and 2) the constitutional coding of Intergovernmental Relations. However, the 2000-2018 period threw Urban Development to the national-subnational competition. Equally, the collective and individual initiatives of the subnational governments may be understood as federal safeguards.

Pouring Oil on Iraq’s Fragile Power Sharing Arrangement: Kurdistan’s Autonomy and the Kurdish Oil Judgment of 2022

Iraq’s constitution of 2005 was a promising one: it had been accepted in a popular referendum and implemented a federal agenda for the central government and the Kurdistan region. However, a closer look reveals that the constitution-making process was severely flawed. Indeed, some essential features of the federal system are either missing or remain largely undefined. In this short contribution, we expound on the extent to which the constitution essentially provides for a federal structure, and whether it has been properly implemented. Further examination reveals that the absence of federal regions (besides the Kurdistan region), the unclear distribution of rules, as well as the missing bicameral parliament and the law on the Federal Supreme Court, all contribute to the lack of federal practice in Iraq – leading to important anti-federal consequences, such as the 2022 Iraqi Oil Judgment.

Cities in the Context of Swiss Federalism

Communes embody the diversity of a federal state. Amongst them, cities play an important role in many regards. Various questions arise when looking into cities and city-related issues in Swiss federalism from a legal perspective. Their status is primarily determined by the cantons and thus varies from canton to canton. The Federal legislator partially deals with cities, too. Overall, this leaves us with a fragmented picture of the city as a distinct legal entity. The following article provides a brief overview of elements that position the city in the context of Swiss federalism, starting with its definition, looking at approaches taken in the cantons and at the federal level and linking cities with reform proposals.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

• Previous Article

Introduction

Historical background, drafting & ratification, ratification, separation of powers, legislative branch, executive branch, judicial branch, local government, transportation, finance and taxation, protection of unalienable rights, a case study in federalism - the united states and michigan constitutions: not double vision, double constitutions.

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Guest Access
• Get Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

MICHAEL WARREN; A Case Study in Federalism - the United States and Michigan Constitutions: Not Double Vision, Double Constitutions. Michigan Academician 2 January 2021; 47 (2): 202–219. doi: https://doi.org/10.7245/0026-2005-47.2.202

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Each citizen in America lives under two Constitutions - the United States, federal Constitution which applies to all citizens, and the constitution of the state in which the citizen lives. Often overlooked and basically unknown, the state constitutions play a vital role in governance and preserving our unalienable rights. Perhaps the best way to understand each constitution is to compare and contrast them. Accordingly, as a case study, this article examines the age, length, predecessors, drafting process, conventions, ratification process, and amendment procedures of the State of Michigan Constitution of 1963 and the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, this article examines how each of these constitutions addresses the separation of powers, legislature, executive, judiciary, local government, transportation, education, finance, taxation, and the protection of unalienable rights. Armed with this understanding, we will be better informed citizens, and more ably equipped to participate in self-governance and protect the unalienable rights of the citizenry.

Note: At times this article quotes constitutional text which refers to “he” or “him.” The grammatical convention at the time was to make masculine all generic gender references. That this article quotes the text does not equate to an endorsement of the convention nor did the drafters intend that only men could serve as public officials.

Noah Webster, the famous publisher of A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language, fittingly observed in an article advocating for the adoption of the U.S. Constitution: “in no country, have the body of the people such knowledge of the rights of men and principles of governments. This knowledge, joined with a keen sense of liberty and watchful jealousy, will guard our constitutions, and awaken the people to an instantaneous resistance of encroachments.” (Webster, Noah. October 17, 1787. A Citizen of America: An Examination into the Leading Principles of America , https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/a-citizen-of-america-an-examination-into-the-leading-principles-of-america/ .)

Unfortunately, that knowledge, keen sense of liberty, and watchful jealousy appear to be on the wane. Indeed, when one is tasked to consider “the constitution” my guess is not many ponder a threshold question: “ Which constitution?” One might naturally think the U.S. Constitution must be the topic. Not necessarily so. Because each state also has a constitution, each person lives under two constitutions. Few people understand the United States Constitution well, and only a minute number understand their state constitution. As a former debater, I appreciate that one should understand both sides of an issue to become deeply informed. Likewise, to understand our constitutions deeply, the best course may be to compare and contrast them. Accordingly, this article will review the basic contours of the constitutions of the State of Michigan of 1963 and the United States to discern their commonalities and yawning differences. By necessity of space and time, this article will only address the constitutions from a high level, and will not delve much into the wonderful commentary that this comparison might yield.

The U.S. Constitution was preceded by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which was drafted by the Second Continental Congress in 1777 and effective in 1781. The current Michigan Constitution was preceded by the Northwest Ordinance, Michigan Constitution of 1835, Michigan Constitution of 1850, and Michigan Constitution of 1908.

The U.S. Constitution was drafted pursuant to a constitutional convention held in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787. Each state appointed its own delegates. Although there were 55 delegates, each state's delegation counted as only one vote. The majority of each state's delegation would determine the vote of the state ( i.e ., if a delegation of three members split 2-1 in favor of a measure, that state's single vote would be cast in favor of the measure). George Washington presided over the federal convention.

The current Michigan Constitution of 1963 was drafted pursuant to a constitutional convention held in Lansing at Constitution Hall (the main auditorium at the Civic Center) from October 1961 to August 1962. The Michigan delegates were elected in a primary election held in July 1961. A delegate was chosen from each of the then-existing 110 state House of Representative districts and 34 state Senate districts. Each delegate voted at the Michigan convention on the principle of one delegate, one vote. Former American Motors Company president and future governor George Romney (and father of Republican Presidential candidate and current Utah Senator Mitt Romney) was the chairman of the Michigan Convention.

The U.S. Constitution is 4,543 words. The Michigan Constitution dwarfs the United States document with over 31,000 words.

The U.S. Constitution required nine of the 13 original states to ratify the document before it became effective. Each state held a ratification convention to debate the merits, and each had a separate process for selecting the delegates to the convention. Although no state rejected the Constitution, the approval of the Constitution was not a forgone conclusion and a vigorous debate ensued in several states, most especially in Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. Those supporting ratification were dubbed the “Federalists,” and those opposed, the “Anti-Federalists.” Both sides wrote voluminously in the papers and pamphlets of the day. The Federalist Papers (written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay) were a series of brilliant newspaper articles advocating ratification. New Hampshire sealed the deal when it ratified the United States Constitution on June 21, 1788. The United States Constitution went into effect in March 1789. Rhode Island delayed its ratification until May 1790.

Adoption of the Michigan Constitution was even a closer call. After a robust campaign, the Michigan Constitution was submitted to a vote of the people of Michigan on April 1, 1963, and adopted by the very slim margin of 810,860 to 803,436. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, at the time of the election, the proposed draft constitution was accompanied at the ballot box with an “Address to the People” that provided commentary about the purpose behind particular provisions of the proposed constitution. In addition, the constitutional convention produced a widely distributed 109-page booklet for consideration by the voters. (Michigan Constitutional Convention. 1962. What the Proposed New State Constitution Means to You: A Report to the People of Michigan by Their Elected Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1961-62 . Lansing, Michigan: State of Michigan.)

The United States Constitution has a world famous preamble that explains the reason for the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This Preamble enumerates the purposes of the Constitution, including improving, securing or ensuring the social compact, justice, peace, common defense, common welfare, and liberty.

The Preamble to the Michigan Constitution of 1963 echoes and materially differs from that of the United States:

We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.

As the text reveals, the Michigan Constitution invokes the Creator expressly, declares gratitude, and centers on the “blessings of liberty.” The U.S. Constitution does not expressly invoke God or promulgate gratitude. The Michigan Constitution omits most of the purposes enumerated for the U.S. Constitution other than securing liberty and attempting to provide those blessings to the people and their posterity.

Each constitution provides for three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. The United States Constitution does so through a simple enumeration of the branches in Articles I-III. On the other hand, Article III, Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution specifically provides, “The powers of government are divided into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. No person exercising powers of one branch shall exercise powers properly belonging to another branch except as expressly provided in this constitution.” The U.S. Constitution has no such express provision.

However, Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits any member of Congress from being appointed to “any civil Office created under the Authority of the United States . . . .” In practice, this provision forbids members of the Congress from serving in the executive or judicial branches. Article IV, Section 8 of the Michigan Constitution provides that “No person holding any office, employment or position under the United States or this state or a political subdivision thereof, except notaries public and members of the armed forces reserve, may be a member of either house of the legislature.” In other words, except for the two carve outs mentioned in the Constitution, a Michigan legislator cannot be an employee of the federal or local units of government.

Article I, Sections 1-3 of the United States Constitution provide for a House of Representatives and a Senate. In a parallel fashion, Article IV, Sections 1-3 of the Michigan Constitution provide the same. Under Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution and Article IV, Section 3 of the Michigan Constitution, members of the House of Representatives are elected for two-year terms. Pursuant to Article I, Section 3, United States senators serve six-year terms and one-third of the Senate is elected during each election cycle ( i.e ., every two years). Article IV, Section 3 of the Michigan Constitution provides that senators serve four-year terms and all are elected at once during the same year as the election for the governor.

The U.S. Constitution provides no limits to the number of terms members of Congress may serve. Periodically term limits for members of Congress has been raised by various reform minded organizations and individuals, but Congress has never agreed to forward such an amendment to the states for ratification. Reformers turned their attention to imposing term limits through the states. However, in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 US 779 (1995), the United States Supreme Court found unconstitutional and struck down attempts by states to impose term limits on their own congressional delegations. Article VI, Section 54 provides that Michigan legislators can serve a lifetime maximum of three terms (six years total) in the House of Representatives and two terms (eight years total) in the Senate.

To serve as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Article I, Section 2 provides that a representative must be at least 25 years old, a citizen of the United States for at least seven years, and an inhabitant of the state in which the representative is elected. The U.S. Constitution does not provide a set number of representatives, only that under the same Article there must be at least 30,000 citizens represented by each representative. The total number of U.S. representatives is determined by Congress, based proportionally on population – subject to the caveat that each state must have at least one representative. The First Congress started with 59 voting representatives. Today, the law has fixed the number at 435.

Under Article I, Section 3 United States senators must be at least 30 years old, a citizen for nine years, and a resident of the state the senator represents. Based on a constitutional amendment codified in Article IV, Section 7, United States senators are elected on a statewide basis, with each state having two senators. Congress began with 22 voting Senators, it has increased today to 100. Article I, Section 4 of U.S. Constitution provides: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.”

In Michigan, Article IV, Section 7 provides that “Each senator and representative must be a citizen of the United States, at least 21 years of age, and an elector of the district he represents.” Under Article IV, Sections 2-3, Michigan Senate and House districts are both determined by population. In addition, pursuant to Article VI, Section 7, in Michigan “No person who has been convicted of subversion or who has within the preceding 20 years been convicted of a felony involving a breach of public trust shall be eligible for either house of the legislature.” The U.S. Constitution has no such bar.

Unlike the federal Constitution, Article IV, Sections 24-26 of the Michigan Constitution hems in the legislative process by title, object, and other legislative requirements and prohibitions. Article IV, Section 6, recently adopted as a constitutional amendment in a statewide ballot initiative, provides that legislative districts for the Michigan House, Michigan Senate, and Members of the U.S. House of Representatives will be drawn by an independent citizens redistricting commission. The provision details who is eligible and ineligible to serve on the commission, the process by which members are selected, and the process for drawing up districts.

Initiative and Referendum

Under the U.S. Constitution the people are locked out of any direct legislative role - there is no provision for initiative or referendum.

Article II, Section 9 of the Michigan Constitution provides Michigan voters a direct channel to enact or reject legislation. The section provides: “The people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and enact and reject laws, called the initiative, and the power to approve or reject laws enacted by the legislature, called the referendum.” However, the people may not enact via initiative a law that the Michigan Legislature is otherwise prohibited from passing, and appropriations bills are exempt from the referendum. Initiatives and referendums require petitions be signed by voters equal to at least 8 percent of the voters for Governor in the last general election. If a majority of voters oppose a law subject to a referendum, it fails to become law. Moreover, “Any law proposed by initiative petition shall either be enacted or rejected by the legislature without change or amendment within 40 session days from the time such petition is received by the legislature.” Any such laws approved by the legislature are not placed on the ballot, but those which are rejected are placed on the ballot as a referendum for approval or rejection by the voters at the next general election. Any law approved via referendum or initiative takes effect without the signature of the Governor, and may not be amended unless three-quarters of both the Michigan Senate and Michigan House approve. If two such laws conflict, the one receiving the most votes prevails. For example, if one initiative approved by 1,000,000 votes provided that absentee ballots may be counted if received three days after the election and a second initiative approved by 1,500,000 votes provided that absentee ballots must not be counted unless received no later than the election, the second initiative would prevail.

Article II, Section 1 provides that the executive power of the United States is vested in the president who is elected pursuant to the Electoral College. Under Article II, Sections 1 and Amendment XII, the electors of each state are chosen by a method of selection determined by the state legislature. Each elector has two votes, one each for president and vice president (who run as a slate). Article II, Section 1 combined with Amendment XXII (which established term limits for presidents) also provide that president and vice president each serve four-year terms, and are limited to two full terms. The vice president pursuant to Article I, Section 3 serves as the president of the Senate, and has no vote unless there is a tie. No other federal executive offices are created or addressed in the U.S. Constitution.

To be president, Article II, Section 1 provides that a person must be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and have been a resident in the United States for at least 14 years. Article II, Section 2 provides that the president is, among other things, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The same provision provides that the president has the power to grant reprieves and pardons (except for cases of impeachment), make treaties (subject to a two-thirds approval of the Senate), and appoint federal judges (subject to the advice and consent of the Senate). Section 3 of Article II establishes that the president has the duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

Article I, Section 7 provides that the president must be presented with any legislation passed by Congress and, upon the president's signature, it becomes law. The president may instead choose to veto legislation passed by the Congress, in which case it fails to become law. However, the same provision provides that if two-thirds of each house of Congress votes to overrule the veto, it becomes law.

Article V, Section 1 provides that the executive power of the State of Michigan is vested in the governor. Pursuant to Article V, Section 21, the governor and lieutenant governor serve four-year terms, with a maximum of two terms. The same provision provides that the governor is elected in the general election of alternate even-numbered years. On the other hand, candidates for lieutenant governor are nominated by party conventions pursuant to the quirky Article V, Section 21. The same provision provides that “In the general election one vote shall be cast jointly for the candidates of governor and lieutenant governor nominated by the same party.”

Under Article V, Section 8, the governor supervises each “principal department … unless otherwise provided by” the Constitution. Paralleling the federal Constitution, the same provision provides that the governor is also to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Unlike the federal Constitution, Article V, Section 6 is a negative advice and consent clause – any gubernatorial appointments take effect unless a majority of the state Senate votes to disapprove the appointment. Another variation from the federal Constitution is that under Article V, Section 8, the governor has the authority to remove or suspend “any elective or appointive state officer, except legislative or judicial,” for “gross negligence of duty or for corrupt conduct in office, or for any other misfeasance or malfeasance therein . . . .”

Like the president, pursuant to Article V, Section 12, the governor is the commander in chief of the armed forces. The president also has the authority under Article V, Section 14 to grant “reprieves, commutations and pardons for all offenses, except in cases of impeachment,” but that power is subject to the procedures and regulations provided by law. The governor has a constitutional mandate under Article V, Section 18 to submit to the Legislature a balanced budget and appropriation bills.

Like the U.S. Constitution, under Article IV, Section 33, upon passage of a bill by the legislature, the Governor has the option of signing it to make it law or to veto it. If the governor vetos the bill, that veto can be overridden by a vote of two-thirds of the House of Representatives and Senate.

In common with the vice president, under Article V, Section 25, the lieutenant governor is president of the Senate, without a vote except in cases of a tie. To be governor or lieutenant governor, Article V, Section 22 establishes that a person must be 30 years old and have been a voter in the state for the four years “next preceding his election.”

Contrary to the federal Constitution's silence, Article V, Section 21 provides that the attorney general and secretary of state are likewise elected for four-year terms at the same time as the governor, with a maximum of two terms. Parallel to the lieutenant governor, Article V, Section 21 vests state party conventions with the authority to nominate the attorney general and secretary of state candidates.

Unlike the U.S. Constitution, Michigan Constitution Article V, Section 2 addresses in detail the administrative bureaucracy over which the governor presides. For example, there are no more than “20 principal departments. They shall be grouped as far as practicable according to major purposes.” In addition, unless legislatively vetoed, the governor has plenary authority under Article V, Section 2 to reorganize the executive branch via executive order.

The Michigan Constitution also establishes a statewide elected state board of education (Article VIII, Section 30); elected statewide boards for the University of Michigan, Wayne State University, and Michigan State University (Article VIII, Section 5); an appointed civil rights commission (Article V, Section 29); an appointed state transportation commission (Article V, Section 28); a Michigan nongame fish and wildlife trust fund (Article IX, Section 42); a Michigan game and fish protection fund (Article IX, Section 41); a Michigan conservation and recreation legacy fund (Article IX, Section 40); a Michigan veterans trust fund (Article IX, Sections 37-39); and a Michigan natural resources trust fund (Article IX, Section 35). Suffice it to say, the Michigan Constitution's penchant for defining the administrative structure of state government is quite intense.

Under Article III, Section 1, the judicial power of the United States is vested in “one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” All federal judges under this provision have life terms, subject to being in “good Behavior.” The provision also establishes that jurisdiction of the federal courts includes all cases arising under the U.S. Constitution, federal law, treaties, foreign relations, admiralty and maritime, and controversies between the states. There are no minimum qualifications for members of the Supreme Court, and the number of justices is determined by Congress. Yes, anyone, of any age, from anywhere, can be a federal judge or United States Supreme Court Justice. Presumably the drafters of the federal Constitution believed that the nomination and approval process for the federal judges would be of sufficient rigor as to ensure only qualified candidates became judges.

In contrast, Article VI, Section 1 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 provides that the “judicial power of the state is vested exclusively in one court of justice which shall be divided into one supreme court, one court of appeals, one trial court of general jurisdiction known as the circuit court, one probate court, and courts of limited jurisdiction that the legislature may establish by two-thirds vote of the members elected to and serving in each house.” Under Article VI, Section 2, the Supreme Court has seven members, serving eight-year terms with staggered elections. The Supreme Court is nonpartisan, and “Nominations for justices of the supreme court shall be in a manner prescribed by law.” However, an incumbent may be placed on the ballot simply by filing an affidavit of candidacy. Under Article VI, Section 3, the Supreme Court chooses its own chief justice, and the chief justice “shall perform duties required by the court.”

The Supreme Court is constitutionally mandated under that provision to appoint “an administrator of the courts and other assistants of the supreme court as may be necessary to aid in the administration of the courts of this state.” Pursuant to Article VI, Section 4, the Supreme Court possesses “general superintending control over all courts … and appellate jurisdiction as provided by rules of the supreme court,” and under Article VI, Section 5, rule-making authority over the “practice and procedure in all courts of this state.” Although the Supreme Court originally had no “power to remove a judge,” pursuant to a constitutional amendment embedded in Article VI, Section 5, it may do so pursuant to judicial tenure proceedings.

Unlike the federal Constitution, Article VI, Section 6 provides that “Decisions of the supreme court, including all decisions on prerogative writs, shall be in writing and shall contain a concise statement of the facts and reasons for each decision and reasons for each denial of leave to appeal.” That provision also provides that “When a judge dissents in whole or in part he shall give in writing the reasons for his dissent.”

Furthermore, unlike the federal Constitution, Article VI, Section 8 establishes a court of appeals, with the number of judges determined by law. Article VI, Section 9 specifies that Court of Appeals judges serve six-year terms, elected in staggered terms. As defined by Article VI, Section 8, Court of Appeals judges are elected in nonpartisan elections “from districts drawn on county lines and as nearly as possible of equal population, as provided by law.” Furthermore, under Article VI, Section 10, the jurisdiction of the court of appeals is determined by law.

Circuit courts are created pursuant to Article VI, Section 11 and are established along county lines (and can include more than one county), with a minimum of one judge per circuit, as provided by law. That provision provides that circuit courts must conduct sessions at least four times a year, and the number of judges for each circuit is also established by law. Article VI, Section 12 provides that circuit court judges are nominated and elected in staggered (within each circuit) non-partisan elections for six-year terms, and must live in the circuit to which they are elected. Circuit courts under Article VI, Section 13 have

original jurisdiction in all matters not prohibited by law; appellate jurisdiction from all inferior courts and tribunals except as otherwise provided by law; power to issue, hear and determine prerogative and remedial writs; supervisory and general control over inferior courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions in accordance with the rules of the supreme court; and jurisdiction of other cases and matters as provided by the rules of the supreme court.

Probate judges are also established under Article VI, Section 15 and follow the same elective and qualification procedures as circuit court judges.

To serve as a judge, Article VI, Section 19 provides that an individual must have been admitted to practice law for at least five years, and cannot be elected or appointed after reaching 70 years old. Furthermore, Article VI, Section 20 establishes that judges are ineligible to be “nominated for or elected to an elective office other than a judicial office during the period of his service and for one year thereafter.”

There is no provision in the federal Constitution to recall elected officials.

Article II, Section 8 of the Michigan Constitution, on the other hand, provides that the laws “shall be enacted” to provide for the recall of “all elective officers except judges of courts of record” upon the petition of electors equal to 25% of the number of persons in the last election voting for the office of Governor “in the electoral district of the officer sought to be recalled.” There is a requirement that the petition provide a “statement of reasons or grounds” for the recall, and whether those reasons or grounds are sufficient cannot be reviewed by the courts. In other words, Judges have no role in determining whether a recall is meritorious or whether the statement of reasons or grounds are truthful.

Other than ensuring a republican form of government at the state level (Article IV, Section 4), the United States Constitution is utterly silent with regard to local governance. Thus, the U.S. Constitution is absolutely silent with regard to counties, cities, townships, villages, and other municipal forms of government. Local governments remain the domain of the States pursuant to Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution.

The Michigan Constitution addresses the respective powers, immunities, and governance of counties (Article VII, Sections 1-4), townships (Article VII, Sections 14, 17-18, 20, 24), cities (Article VII, Sections 21-24), and villages (Article VII, sections 21-24). The Constitution is so detailed that it bars the bridging and damming of “navigable stream[s]” without the permission of supervisors of the local county (Article VII, Section 12), and it permits county intervention in public utility services and rate proceedings (Article VII, Section 15). Likewise, under Article VII, Section 19, a township is not permitted to grant a public utility franchise “which is not subject to revocation at the will of the township, unless the proposition shall first have been approved by a majority of electors of such township voting thereon at a regular or special election.” Article VII, Section 34 Constitution also provides that the “The provisions of this constitution and the law concerning counties, townships, cities and villages shall be liberally construed in their favor. Powers granted to counties and townships by this constitution and by law shall include those fairly implied and not prohibited by this constitution.”

Article VII, Section 16 of the Michigan Constitution provides that the Legislature “may provide for the laying out, construction, improvement and maintenance of highways, bridges, culverts and airports by the state and the counties and townships thereof; and may authorize counties to take charge and control of any highway within their limits for such purposes.”

No powers or duties regarding education are provided in the federal Constitution.

On the other hand, Article VIII of Michigan's Constitution is entirely dedicated to the provision of education. Section 1 of the Article incorporates a key phrase of the Northwest Ordinance: “Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Section 2 requires the Legislature to “maintain and support a system of free public elementary and secondary schools as defined by law,” and specifically provides that each school district shall provide “education to its pupils without discrimination as to religion, creed, race, color or national origin.” Pursuant to a constitutional amendment, that Section also bans direct or indirect financial aid to nonpublic schools.

Section 3 creates an 8 member, statewide elected State Board of Education and vests it with “Leadership and general supervision over all public education, including adult education and instructional programs in state institutions, except as to institutions of higher education granting baccalaureate degrees . . . .”

Higher education institutions are established by Section 4, and Section 5 provides for statewide elections for Wayne State University, the University of Michigan, and Michigan State University. This provision stems from the perceived mismanagement of the original “Big 3” statewide universities by the Legislature. See, e.g., State Board of Agriculture v The Auditor General , 226 Mich 417, 424-425 (1924). The Legislature is mandated by Article XI, Section 7 to establish and financially support public community and junior colleges.

Article I, Section 8 of the federal Constitution simply provides that the United States has the power “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” and “To borrow money on the credit of the United States.”

In contrast, the Michigan Constitution takes painstaking care to address taxes and fiscal matters. In particular, Article IX, entitled Finance and Taxation, has 43 Sections. Provisions address, among other things, taxes for state expenses (Article IX, Section 1), property taxation (Article IX, Section 2), exemption from taxation for religious and educational nonprofit organizations (Article IX, Section 3), income tax (Article IX, Section 7), sales and use taxes (Article IX, Section 9), fuel taxes (Article IX, Section 9), taxes dedicated to schools (Article IX, Section 11), short term state borrowing (Article IX, Section 14), payments from the State treasury (Article IX, Section 17), public financial records (Article IX, Section 23), public pensions (Article IX, Section 24), limitations on taxes (Article IX, Section 26), limitations on revenue (Article IX, Section 27), the creation of the Michigan natural resources trust fund (Article IX, Section 35), tobacco taxes (Article IX, Section 36), establishment of the Michigan veterans' trust fund (Article IX, Section 37), establishment of the Michigan conservation and recreation legacy fund (Article IX, Section 40), and the establishment of the Michigan game and fish protection fund (Article IX, Section 4).

With a few exceptions, the federal Constitution's protection of unalienable rights is found in the Bill of Rights (Amendments I-X) and the Reconstruction Amendments (Amendments XII-XV). The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a state church, and guarantees the rights of the free exercise of religion; freedoms of speech and press; and freedoms to assemble and petition the government. The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, while the Third Amendment prohibits the quartering of troops. The Fourth - Eighth Amendments mostly protect the rights of criminal defendants or address rights in civil litigation, along with prohibiting the acquisition of property without a public purpose and just compensation.

The Thirteenth Amendment bars slavery, the Fourteenth defines citizenship and ensures the equal protection of laws and due process as applied to the States, while Amendment XV guaranteed the right to vote for all men. The Nineteenth Amendment provides the right to vote to all women, and the right to vote was expanded to 18-year-olds by Amendment XXVI. There is no federal constitutional bar to the death penalty.

The first article of the Michigan Constitution is a Declaration of Rights. Section 1 of Article I provides that “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection.” The Declaration of Rights is composed of 27 sections. Many of the sections provide similar or parallel provisions to the federal Bill of Rights, including equal protection of the law (Article I, Section 2); the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government (Article I, Section 3); the protection of the free exercise of religion (Article I, Section 4); the freedoms of speech and press (Article I, Section 5); the right to bear arms (Article I, Section 6); the prohibition of bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and impairment of contracts (Article I, Section 10); and the protection of jury trials (Article I, Section 14).

Other rights are not found in the federal Constitution, such as the rights of crime victims (Article I, Section 24); the prohibition of affirmative action programs in education (Article I, Section 26); and human embryo and embryonic stem cell research (Article I, Section 27). Michigan also defined marriage to be solely between a man and a woman (Article I, Section 25), but that definition was declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Obergefell v Hodges , 576 US 644 (2015).

Because Michigan was always a free state and did not participate in that dreaded, grave stain in American history, Michigan did not have to ban slavery. Nevertheless, Article I, Section 9 of the Declaration of Rights specifically provides that “Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude unless for the punishment of crime, shall ever be tolerated in this state.” In addition, maintaining its tradition of being the first English-speaking jurisdiction to ban capital punishment for ordinary offenses, Article IV, Section 46 prohibits the Legislature from enacting the death penalty.

To amend the U.S. Constitution, pursuant to Article V, two-thirds of both houses of Congress must submit a proposal to the states, and three-quarters of the states must approve the same. According to the Pew Research Center, approximately 12,000 amendments have been proposed in Congress, and only 33 have gone to the states for consideration. The U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times. Such amendments include the Bill of Rights (Amendments I-X), the prohibition of slavery (Amendment XIII), establishing equal protection and due process for all people (Amendment XIV), voting rights for African-Americans and women (Amendments XV and XIX), authorizing an income tax (Amendment XVI), altering United States Senate elections (Amendment XVII), and modifying presidential elections and succession procedures (Amendments XII, XX, XII, and XXV).

One particularly vexing focus of a series of amendments has been the selection of the vice president and presidential succession. For example, originally the Constitution provided that electors had two votes for president, and the person who received the second largest number of electoral votes would become Vice President. When John Adams succeeded George Washington, Adams' rival - Thomas Jefferson - served as his Vice President. Jefferson did not serve loyally, but instead worked to undermine President Adams, including establishing a political party and newspaper to oppose the administration. Matters took an even worse turn in the election of 1800, in which Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr ran as a slate against Adams to avoid having Adams become Jefferson's vice president. But a funny thing happened on the way to the election - all of the electors favoring Jefferson and Burr voted for both men - leading to a tie. This tie threw the election to the House of Representatives, which only succeeded in electing Jefferson on the 36th ballot. By requiring an election of a ticket of both president and vice president (i.e., each elector casts one ballot for a presidential candidate and one for a vice presidential candidate), Amendment XII eliminated a rival as Vice President and a tie between partners on a slate.

To amend the Michigan Constitution, pursuant to Article XII, Section 2, citizens can propose an amendment via a ballot initiative when at least 10 percent of the total vote cast for all candidates for governor at the last preceding election sign a petition. The Legislature can also propose an amendment pursuant to Article XII, Section 1, if two-thirds of both houses vote to do so. In either case, Article XII, Sections 1-2 require an amendment to be approved by a majority vote of the people in a statewide election.

According to the State of Michigan, Bureau of Elections, Initiatives and Referendums, under the Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963, there have been 31 proposed amendments via ballot initiatives and 43 via legislative resolutions. Of the proposed amendments, 32 have been approved and 42 rejected. Approved amendments include establishing the Judicial Tenure Commission (Article VI, Section 30), the creation of the State Officers Compensation Commission (Article IV, Section 12), addressing the filling of judicial vacancies (Article VI, Sections 20, 22-24), prohibiting public funds to aid nonpublic schools and students (Article VIII, Section 2), and authorizing lotteries (Article IV, Section 41). Rejected amendments included attempts to lower the voting age to 18 (twice) (Senate Joint Resolution “A,” P.A. 1966, p. 678 and House Joint Resolution “A,” P.A. 1970, p. 690), authorizing a graduated income tax (Senate Joint Resolution “G,” P.A. 1967, p. 672), and permitting election of members of the Legislature to another state office during their term of office (Senate Joint Resolution “Q,” P.A. 1968, p. 708).

Article V provides that a U.S. constitutional convention can be called “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,” and a new constitution may be adopted when three-quarters of the states approve the new constitution (either by constitutional conventions or by the state legislatures, as determined by Congress). No successful movement to call for a convention has occurred, although a movement dubbed the “Convention of the States” has obtained applications from 15 states (both houses of the state legislature), with partial success in 8 others (one house), calling for a convention that would “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials.”

The question of whether Michigan should hold a new constitutional convention is placed on the general election ballot every 16 years (beginning in 1978) pursuant to Article XII, Section 3. If a majority of voters concur, a constitutional convention will be held subject to certain parameters set forth in the current Constitution. This process has yet to yield a call for a new convention since the enactment of the 1963 Constitution. The idea of calling a constitutional convention in Michigan was most recently resoundingly rejected in 2010 with nearly two-thirds of the voters rejecting the proposal. If recent history serves as a guide, the people of Michigan seem uninterested in reopening the pandora's box of a Constitutional Convention.

The federal and Michigan Constitutions have many similarities. They both rest on the foundation and ratification of the people (indirectly or directly) for legitimacy. They are written and can be amended through clearly defined mechanisms. They include separation of powers, checks and balances among the branches, and a specific list of unalienable rights guaranteed against the government. They define the powers, election or appointment process, and terms of each of the branches of government.

Yet, the differences between our two constitutions are quite immense – revealing the origins and philosophies undergirding each. For example, the Michigan Constitution provides for direct action by the people in modifying their fundamental charter and laws, while the federal Constitution has no such mechanisms. The voters of the State of Michigan directly elect nearly all state constitutional officers, while the federal system provides direct elections of only the Congress. Indeed, federal judges are appointed indirectly by the people's representatives in Congress and the President and have life tenure; Michigan judges are directly elected and may not run for re-election after the age of 70. Other than judges of record, all elected officials can be recalled in Michigan - not so in the federal system. The Michigan Constitution imposes very severe term limits on the state legislature, while members of Congress have no limits whatsoever. Michigan has very detailed provisions regarding taxation, spending, transportation, natural resources, and education, while the federal Constitution either fails to address such matters or does so in very broad ways. Understanding their similarities and differences gives us a deeper appreciation for the value they provide and any potential imperfections. Simply put, the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions have a profound impact on our daily lives, significantly are similar and differ in scope and detail, and are well worth learning if we intend to preserve our liberties and freedoms.

Recipient(s) will receive an email with a link to 'A Case Study in Federalism - the United States and Michigan Constitutions: Not Double Vision, Double Constitutions' and will not need an account to access the content.

Subject: A Case Study in Federalism - the United States and Michigan Constitutions: Not Double Vision, Double Constitutions

(Optional message may have a maximum of 1000 characters.)

Citing articles via

Get email alerts.

• About This Journal
• eISSN 2167-8634
• ISSN 0026-2005
• Privacy Policy
• Get Adobe Acrobat Reader

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 14 July 2021
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Francesco Palermo 3  

75 Accesses

3 Citations

The entry illustrates theories and practice of federalism, its historical evolution, institutions, procedures, manifestations, and trends. The first part looks at origins and evolution of the concept, from the classical, coming-together federations to more recent devolutionary federal and regional states and other related expressions, including hybrid forms such as the European Union. It then moves to the most significant constitutional features of federal states, with special regards to constitutional safeguards, rules on the division of powers, and institutions for participation and cooperation among the levels of government. The last part deals with contemporary and future trends of federalism and with the challenges for federal studies in the years to come.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Anderson, George. 2007. Federalism: An introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar  

———. 2008. The council of Australian Governments: A new institution of governance for Australia’s conditional federalism. University of New South Wales Law Journal 31: 493.

Aroney, Nicholas. 2009. The constitution of a federal commonwealth . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Aroney, Nicholas, and James Allan. 2008. An uncommon court: How the High Court of Australia has undermined Australian federalism. Sydney Law Review 30: 245.

Aroney, Nicholas, and John Kincaid, eds. 2007. Courts in federal countries. Federalists or unitarists? Toronto/Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.

Basta Fleiner, Lidija, and Jean-François Gaudreault-DesBiens. 2013. Federalism and autonomy. In Routledge handbook of constitutional law , ed. Mark Tushnet, Thomas Fleiner, and Cheryl Saunders, 143. London: Routledge.

Bermeo, Nancy. 2002. The import of institutions. Journal of Democracy 13: 96, 108 ff.

Bird, Richard. 2009. Tax assignment revisited. In The 21st century: A volume in memory of Richard Musgrave , ed. John G. Head and Richard E. Krever. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

Boadway, Robin. 2006. Intergovernmental redistributive transfers. In Handbook of fiscal federalism , ed. Ehtisham Ahmad and Giorgio Brosio, 363. London: Edward Elgar.

Bogdanor, Vernon. 2001. Devolution in the United Kingdom . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bolleyer, Nicole. 2009. Intergovernmental cooperation: Rational choices in federal systems and beyond . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bradbury, Jonathan, and John Mawson, eds. 1997. British regionalism and devolution: The challenges of state reform and European integration . Routledge: London.

Breen, Michael. 2018. Road to federalism in Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka . London: Routledge.

Broschek, Jörg. 2013. Between path dependence and gradual change: Historical institutionalism and the study of federal dynamics. In Federal dynamics: Continuity, change and the varieties of federalism , ed. Arthur Benz and Jörg Broschek, 93. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Burgess, Michael. 2006. Comparative federalism: Theory and practice . Abingdon: Routledge.

———. 2012. In search of the federal spirit . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Choudhry, Sujit, ed. 2008. Constitutional design for divided societies . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Delledonne, Giacomo and Martinico, Giuseppe (2012), ‘Legal conflict and subnational constitutionalism’, 42 Rutgers Law Journal, 881 ff.

Delpérée, Francis. 1993. Le Fédéralisme de Confrontation à la Belge. In Föderalismus zwischen Integration und Sezession , ed. Jutta Kramer, 133 ff. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Dicey, Albert V. 1965. The law of the constitution . 10th ed. London: Macmillan.

Dinstein, Yoram. 1981. Autonomy. In Models of autonomy , ed. Yoram Dinstein, 299 ff. New Brunswick: Transaction Press.

Doria, Giancarlo. 2006. The Paradox of Federal Bicameralism. European Diversity and Autonomy Papers, 5.

Elazar, Daniel. 1991. Exploring federalism . Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

———. 1994. Federal systems of the world: A handbook of federal, confederal and autonomy arrangements . 2nd ed. Harlow: Longman Group.

Favoreu, Louis. 1990. American and European models of constitutional justice. In Comparative and private international law: Essays in honor of John Merryman , ed. David Clark, 111 ff. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

Fessha, Yonatan T., and Karl Kössler. 2020. Federalism and the courts in Africa . London: Routledge.

Fleiner, Thomas, and Cheryl Saunders. 2013. Constitutions Embedded in Different Legal Systems. In Routledge Handbook of Constitutional Law , ed. Mark Tushnet et al., 21 ff. New York: Routledge.

Fraenkel-Haeberle, Cristina, et al., eds. 2015. Citizen participation in multi-level democracies . Leiden/Boston: Brill.

Frenkel, Max. 1986. Federal theory . Canberra: Australian National University.

Gamper, Anna. 2005. A “global theory of federalism”: The nature and challenges of a federal state. German Law Journal 6: 1297 ff.

———. 2018. Representing regions, challenging bicameralism: An introduction. Perspectives on Federalism 2: I–IX.

Article   Google Scholar  

Häberle, Peter. 1994. Föderalismus, Regionalismus und Kleinstaaten in Europa. In Idem, Europäische Rechtskultur: Versuch einer Annäherung in zwölf Schritten , 257 ff. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Halberstam, Daniel. 2012. Federalism: Theory, Policy, Law, in Michael Rosenfeld. In The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law , ed. András Sajó, 576 ff. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hazell, Robert. 2007. Out of court: Why have the courts played no role in resolving devolution disputes in the United Kingdom? Publius 37: 578 ff.

Hepburn, Eve. 2012. Recrafting sovereignty: Lessons from small Island autonomies? In Political autonomy and divided societies: Imagining democratic alternatives in complex settings , ed. Alain Gagnon and Michael Keating, 118 ff. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hoogers, Gerhard. 2008. UPG voor Curacao, Aruba en St. Maarten. In Schurende rechtsordes: Over de Europese Unie, het Koninkrijk en zijn Caraibische gebieden , ed. Herman E. Bröring et al., 119 ff. Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.

Hooghe, Liesbet, Arjan Shakel, and Gary Marks. 2010. The rise of regional authority: A comparative study of 42 democracies (1950–2006) . New York: Routledge.

Hueglin, Thomas. 2006a. Canada. In Legislative, executive and judicial governance in federal countries , ed. Katy Le Roy and Cheryl Saunders, 122 ff. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

———. 2006b. Canada: Federalism behind (almost) closed doors. In Dialogues on legislative, executive and judicial governance in federal countries , ed. Raoul Blindenbacher and Abigail Ostien Karos, 13 ff. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Hueglin, Thomas, and Alan Fenna. 2015. Comparative federalism: A systematic inquiry . 2nd ed. Peterborough: Broadview Press.

Jonas, Jiri. 2012. Great recession and Fiscal Squeeze at US Subnational Government Level. IMF Working Papers WP/12/184, www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12184.pdf

Kincaid, John. 1990. From cooperative Federalism to coercive federalism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 509: 139 ff.

———. 1999. Confederal federalism and citizen representation in the European Union. West European Politics 22 (2): 34 ff.

———. 2005. Comparative observations. In Constitutional origins, structure and change in federal countries , ed. John Kincaid and G. Alan Tarr, 422 ff. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Kincaid, John, and Rupak Chattopadhyay, eds. 2008. Local government in federal systems . New Delhi: Viva Books.

King, Preston. 1982. Federalism and federation . London: Croom Helm.

Kommers, Donald P., and Russell A. Miller. 2012. The constitutional jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany . 3rd ed. Durham: Duke University Press.

Kössler, Karl. 2015. Conclusions: Beyond the illusion of ethno-culturally homogenous territory. In Minority accommodation through territorial and non-territorial autonomy , ed. Tove Malloy and Francesco Palermo, 245 ff. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lapidoth, Ruth. 1993. Autonomy: Potential and limitations. International Journal of Minority and Group Rights 1: 269 ff.

Leyland, Peter. 2011. The multifaceted dynamics of UK devolution. International Journal of Constitutional Law 9: 251 ff.

Luther, Jörg, et al., eds. 2006. A world of second chambers: Handbook for constitutional studies on bicameralism . Milan: Giuffrè.

Majeed, Akhtar. 2006. Republic of India. In Distribution of powers and responsibilities in federal countries , ed. Akhtar Majeed et al. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Malloy, Tove H., and Francesco Palermo, eds. 2015. Minority accommodation through territorial and non-territorial autonomy . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McLure, Charles. 1983. Tax assignment in federal countries . Canberra: Australian National University.

Nicolaidis, Kalypso, and Robert Howse, eds. 2001. The federal vision: Legitimacy and levels of governance in the United States and the European Union . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Painter, Martin. 1998. Collaborative federalism: Economic reform in Australia in the 1990s . Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Palermo, Francesco, and Elisabeth Alber, eds. 2015. Federalism as decision-making: Changes in structures, procedures and policies . Leiden-Boston: Brill.

Palermo, Francesco, and Karl Kössler. 2017. Comparative federalism . Hart: Oxford.

Poirier, Johanne, and Cheryl Saunders. 2015. Conclusion: comparative experience of intergovernmental relations in federal systems. In Intergovernmental relations in federal systems: Comparative structures and dynamics , ed. Johanne Poirier et al., 440 ff. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Popelier, Patricia, and Koen Lemmens. 2015. The constitution of Belgium: A contextual analysis . Oxford: Hart.

Powell, Derek, and Phindile Ntliziywana. 2015. “South Africa Inc”: The rise of the developmental state and the corporatization of intergovernmental relations. In Federalism as decision-making , ed. Francesco Palermo and Elisabeth Alber, 299 ff. Leiden-Boston: Brill.

Riker, William. 1964. Federalism: Origin, operation, significance . Boston: Little, Brown & Company.

Saunders, Cheryl. 1999. The relationship between national and subnational constitutions. In Subnational constitutional governance , ed. Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, 23 ff. Pretoria: KAS South Africa.

Scharpf, Fritz W. 1985. Die Politikverflechtungsfalle: Europäische Integration und deutscher Föderalismus im Vergleich. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 26: 323 ff.

Schütze, Robert. 2015. European constitutional law . 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.

Shah, Anwar. 2007. Introduction: Principles of fiscal federalism. In The practice of fiscal federalism: Comparative perspectives , ed. Anwar Shah and John Kincaid, 3 ff. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Shell, Donald. 2011. The history of bicameralism. In Second chambers , ed. Nicholas D.J. Baldwin and Donald Shell, 5 ff. London: Frank Cass.

Simeon, Richard. 1972. Federal-provincial diplomacy . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Singh, Mahendra Prasad, and Rekha Saxena. 2010. Intergovernmental relations in India. In Dialogue on intergovernmental relations in federal systems , ed. Rupak Chattopadhyay and Karl Nerenberg, 23 ff. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Sonnicksen, Jared. 2018. Federalism and democracy. A tense relationship. In Calidad democrática y organización territorial , ed. José Tudela, Mario Kölling, and Fernando Reviriego, 29 ff. Madrid et al: Pons.

Stepan, Alfred. 1999. Federalism and democracy: Beyond the US model. Journal of Democracy 10: 19 ff.

Steytler, Nico, ed. 2009. Local government and metropolitan regions in federal systems . Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

———, ed. 2017. Concurrent powers in federal systems. Meaning, making, managing . Leiden-Boston: Brill.

Tarr, G. Alan, ed. 2006. Constitutional politics in the states: Contemporary controversies and historical patterns . Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Toniatti, Roberto. 1997. Federalismo e potere costituente. In Regionalismo e federalismo in Europa . Trento: Giunta della Provincia Autonoma di Trento.

Trench, Alan. 2005. Intergovernmental relations: In search of a theory. In Territory, democracy and justice: Regionalism and federalism in Western Democracies , ed. Scott L. Greer, 224 ff. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

———. 2014. The UK’s devolution finance debates. In Fiscal federalism and fiscal decentralization in Europe , ed. Stefan Lütgenau, 321 ff. Vienna et al: Studien Verlag.

Valdesalici, Alice, and Francesco Palermo, eds. 2018. Comparing fiscal federalism . Leiden-Boston: Brill.

Walker, Neil. 2012. The shifting foundations of the European Union Constitution. University of Edinburgh, School of Law, Europa Working Papers 2012/1.

Watts, Ronald L. 1996a. Comparing federal systems . 1st ed. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

———. 1996b. The institutions of a federal state: Federalism and democracy as fundamental counterweighing principles . Fribourg: Institut du fédéralisme.

———. 1999. Comparing federal systems . 2nd ed. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

———. 2008. Comparing federal systems . 3rd ed. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Wechsler, Herbert. 1954. The Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Role of States in the Composition and Selection of the National Government. Columbia Law Review 54: 543 ff.

Wheare, Kenneth C. 1947. Federal government (4th ed., 1963) . New York: Oxford University Press.

Essential Readings

Halberstam, Daniel. 2012. Federalism: Theory, policy, law. In The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law , ed. Michael Rosenfeld and András Sajó, 576–608. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kincaid, John, ed. 2020. A research agenda for federalism studies . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Palermo, Francesco, and Karl Kössler. 2017. Comparative federalism . Oxford: Hart.

Watts, Ronald L. 2008. Comparing federal systems . 3rd ed. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Verona and Institute for Comparative Federalism, Eurac Research, Bolzano/Bozen, Italy

Francesco Palermo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Palermo .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Cremades & Calvo-Sotelo Abogados, Madrid, Madrid, Spain

Javier Cremades

Public Law II & Philology, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Madrid, Spain

Cristina Hermida

Section Editor information

Institute for Comparative Federalism, University of Verona and Eurac Research, Bolzano/Bozen, Italy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Palermo, F. (2021). Federalism. In: Cremades, J., Hermida, C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Contemporary Constitutionalism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31739-7_81-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31739-7_81-1

Received : 19 May 2020

Accepted : 29 November 2020

Published : 14 July 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-31739-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-31739-7

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Law and Criminology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Federal Questions and the Probate Exception

Renewable energy credits as property, the dormant commerce clause and moral complicity in a national marketplace, financial oversight and management board for puerto rico v. centro de periodismo investigativo, inc., jones v. hendrix, mayor of baltimore v. bp p.l.c..

Fourth Circuit Declines to Apply Federal Common Law for Municipal Climate Change Lawsuit.

Shakman v. Pritzker

Seventh Circuit Holds Governor Satisfied Requirements of Fifty-Year-Old Consent Decree.

Standing in the Way: The Courts’ Escalating Interference in Federal Policymaking

Torres v. texas department of public safety, geo group, inc. v. newsom.

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down as Preempted California Law Prohibiting Private Immigration Detention Within the State

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

3.4: You Decide- Case Studies in Federalism

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 179221

Imagine you are a policymaker deciding each of the following policy issues. A crucial question is how much freedom local and state governments should have. Think about your responsibilities based on your particular role in each of the following case studies, and then decide what you will do. Each section concludes with a discussion of what actually happened.

Case Study One: Shall all California high school students be required to take an Ethnic Studies Course?

You are the governor of California. The California legislature passed a bill mandating all high school students complete a one-semester ethnic studies course. The course emphasizes the history and culture of four groups: African Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Latina/o/x Americans, and Native Americans. Should you sign the bill?

Advocates for the course argue that traditional social studies do not sufficiently address multicultural history, leaving students ignorant of our state's rich heritage. They also say that ethnic studies help students have more pride in their own histories, improve general academic performance, increase intercultural understanding, and contribute to a more educated citizenry better able to understand the challenges we face as a diverse society.

Opponents of the course favor teaching multicultural history, but they are concerned that the course omits many other groups, such as Armenian and Jewish Americans. Additionally, they are worried that the curriculum may overly emphasize oppression as a theme and demand that white students confess their "privilege." They argue that existing social studies courses already use a multicultural approach. At best, the class should be an elective.

Under dual federalism, the state government establishes the public school curriculum. Your choices are to sign the bill and make ethnic studies a requirement or veto it. You will be expected to justify your actions in your signing statement or veto message. What will you do and why?

What Happened?

In 2020, Governor Newsom vetoed the ethnic studies bill ("Veto Message"). Newsom expressed support for an ethnic studies curriculum, pointing out that he had already approved a bill requiring the course for California State University students. However, he asked that the curriculum be revised so that it "achieves balance, fairness and is inclusive of all communities." For the next several months, the State Board of Education revised the curriculum and included the experiences of many more ethnic groups. In 2021, a bill reflecting these changes made its way through the California legislature, and Governor Newsom signed it into law (Fensterwald).

Case Study Two: Shall all states be required to license marriage as between two people?

You are a U.S. Supreme Court justice. You are one of nine responsible for deciding whether the laws and practices of government are constitutional. It is 2015. The case before you is regarding marriage. Shall states be able to define the nature of marriage as a union between only a man and a woman, or should the U.S. Supreme Court tell states that they must offer marriage licenses to any two people?

Traditionally, the states have defined the nature of marriage. States respect the legitimacy of the marriage contracts of other states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV). There are precedents for the Supreme Court to intervene. In the nineteenth century, the Court ruled that marriage shall be monogamous in all the states ( Reynolds v. United States , 1878), outlawing a man having multiple wives. More recently, the Court ruled that a state ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional based on the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause (Loving v. Virginia , 1967).

There are also precedents for the Supreme Court about gay rights. In 1986, the Court affirmed the right of a state to ban homosexual relations ( Bowers v. Hardwick ). It then reversed this decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), with the majority arguing that the right to privacy includes a right to consensual sex between two people.

State laws about marriage were rapidly changing beginning in the mid-1990s. Some states legalized same-sex marriage; others defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. A few had a middle ground of "civil union" that gives states, but not federal, marriage rights to same-sex couples without using the word marriage. The U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (1996), permitting states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

California voters passed Proposition 22 in 2003, which defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court declared this proposition unconstitutional because it violated California equal protection laws. Then California voters passed Proposition 8 in 2008, which added an amendment to the California Constitution, again defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman. The drama continued with gay rights advocates turning to the federal courts, which ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Meanwhile, similar messes were brewing in the rest of the country with a mishmash of laws and conflicting Court rulings causing legal and practical confusion.

Now, let's move forward to 2015. The Supreme Court has consolidated several cases from multiple federal appeals courts to focus on whether the states shall be required to legalize same-sex marriage. The question before us is also very much a question regarding federalism. Shall the federal government impose its will on the states regarding marriage? If so, this nation-centered approach is an example of cooperative federalism. Alternatively, the Court may defer to the states and let their legislative or judicial authorities resolve the matter, an example of dual federalism.

Advocates for requiring states to license same-sex marriages make two arguments based on the Fourteenth Amendment and prior Court cases that provide the precedents for promoting privacy and equal protection of the law. First, lesbian and gay people are entitled to equal dignity before the law. Dignity means that states respect the autonomy and privacy of two people of the same sex to marry. The due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment provide this fundamental right to dignity concerning marriage. Second, particular costs burden gays and lesbians and their children if marriage is limited to heterosexual couples. Health insurance and family leave may be inaccessible. Hospital visits and next-of-kin medical decisions are off-limits. Property laws leave partners destitute in the event of the breakup of relationships. Marriage gives the children and spouses in same-sex families the same rights as those in heterosexual unions.

Opponents of same-sex marriage make two general arguments, one substantive and the other procedural. First, they argue that states have traditionally defined marriage as between a man and a woman. It is in the child's interest to receive care and financial support from both their mother and father. Hence, the institution of marriage is central for one generation to raise the next. Second, procedurally, opponents argue that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this matter. Instead, elected officials, whether at the state or the national level, are the proper authorities to address this question. The Supreme Court should avoid establishing fundamental rights not clearly enumerated in the Constitution.

You are a Supreme Court justice. Redefining marriage will force all states to change their laws to increase liberty and equality. On the other hand, retaining the absence of a federal definition of marriage respects dual federalism. It leaves the states to address the issue through the democratic process, allowing for a diversity of choices among the states. How will you rule?

In 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to legalize same-sex marriage. The majority decision, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, argued that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that same-sex marriage be protected under law to extend equal dignity, or marriage equality, to the same-sex couple:

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideal of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. They hope not to be condemned to loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

Chief Justice Roberts, in one of the dissenting opinions, argued that the Supreme Court was exceeding its jurisdiction with its decision, that elected officials rather than justices should decide this issue:

"If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

After the Supreme Court decision, a single policy for all Americans applied: states must allow same-sex couples to marry, and they will enjoy the same state and federal rights and benefits as opposite-sex couples. The marriage contract and all other marriage-related laws changed to reflect the new view about our fundamental rights as Americans.

Case Study Three: Should the Affordable Care Act be repealed?

It is 2017. You are a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives representing the 25th district of California (in 2022, this district, encompassing the Santa Clarita and Antelope valleys, was renamed the 27th district as part of the redistricting process). The 25th district is what political scientists call a swing district, meaning that the district is evenly divided between Democrats and Republican voters, with candidates winning with less than 55% of the vote. In 2016, you won reelection with 53% of the vote ("California's 25th Congressional District Election"). However, the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, won the district by 50.3%, suggesting that some voters engaged in split-ticket voting, voting for both Republican and Democratic candidates ("Presidential Election in California").

The President, Mr. Trump, is a Republican. One of Mr. Trump's central campaign platforms was to repeal the Affordable Care Act (the "ACA") passed under his predecessor, President Obama. You must decide whether to vote to repeal the ACA, which will improve your support among Republicans, especially the President, or reject the repeal to avoid alienating yourself from moderates and Democrats in your district.

Some background about the Affordable Care Act and the arguments by supporters and critics will help you decide this issue. The ACA is often called "Obamacare" for short because President Obama's central campaign platform in 2008 was to help Americans with health care by improving existing health insurance coverage and expanding coverage to reach uninsured people. It was quite a political battle to push it through a very polarized Congress. When it finally passed in 2010, Obamacare had become the most significant change in healthcare policy in more than a generation. It also represented a substantial shift in the relations between the federal government and states. Some aspects of the ACA expand national power, hence representing a deepening of cooperative federalism. Other parts allow states to set their own policies, representing a deepening of new federalism.

The reach of the federal government increased in many ways. Some of the most significant were: first, employers with fifty or more full-time employees were required to provide health insurance; second, individuals were mandated to buy health insurance and received subsidies from the federal government if their income was up to 400% of the poverty level, and third, insurance companies had to cover preexisting conditions and preventative care. In addition, the ACA preempted, or displaced, state health insurance regulations and hence is an example of cooperative federalism where the national government takes control over a policy area and mandates changes in state policies.

However, aspects of the ACA gave states some freedom to implement the law and are therefore consistent with new federalism. First, states were allowed to create state health insurance exchanges for their residents to buy private insurance. If they chose not to, their residents would have to buy from the federal health insurance exchange. As of 2022, fourteen states and Washington D.C. have set up their own exchanges, including California ( CoveredCalifornia.com ). The state exchanges allow states to have greater autonomy. Second, the ACA expanded Medicaid, the existing public health insurance plan for low-income people established in the 1960s, to cover people who make up to 133% of the federal poverty level. However, because both the federal and state governments fund Medicaid, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled ( National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius , 2012) that states were not required to expand Medicaid eligibility. Hence, eligibility and income requirements for Medicaid vary from one state to another. These variances in ACA policies and programs among the states illustrate the signature characteristic of New Federalism: giving states flexibility based on state political preferences (Health Reform).

Now, we return to your dilemma as a representative. Should you vote to abolish and replace the Affordable Care Act with the American Health Care Act? Most prominently, this 2017 bill ends the expansion of the Medicaid program and income-based subsidies, saving the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars but causing approximately fifteen million people to lose coverage.

Advocates of replacing the ACA are motivated by ideological and partisan reasons. Ideologically, conservatives are skeptical of further government involvement in the healthcare sector of the economy. Seeing health care as an optional consumer product, individual consumers, businesses, and health insurance companies should not be subject to government coercion. Historically, states have been in control of their insurance markets. The ACA undermines state autonomy. Second, for many years, the health care debate has become intensely partisan, with this issue having a prominent role in the platforms of each party. Republicans had invested much importance in defeating President Obama's program. Mr. Trump promised he would succeed in this regard when other Republicans had failed.

Supporters of the Affordable Care Act argue that millions more Americans have health insurance coverage; health insurance coverage is better, and, in the long term, these improvements will lead to a healthier population. Further, they argue that the federal government's appropriate role is to devise a program that provides affordable health care for all. It has long been noted that the U.S. spends far more per capita with far worse health outcomes than other countries and is the only high-income country without some form of universal health care ("U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective"). The ACA is a significant step to remedy this situation.

Public opinion is split along ideological and partisan lines in your district and the country. However, given that more people in your congressional district voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump, it is likely that a vote in favor of repeal will make you less popular. On the other hand, if you vote to keep the ACA, you will likely be ostracized by Republicans in Congress and publicly criticized by the President, making it harder for you to accomplish anything else. Will you vote to repeal and replace Obamacare?

This case study has assigned you the role of Representative Steve Knight. He was elected in 2014 to represent California's 25th district, encompassing the Antelope and Santa Clarita valleys and a portion of Simi Valley. Representative Knight chose to vote with the Republican majority. The vote was intensely partisan and highly visible. Along party lines, the bill passed the House, 217-213, but then a similar bill failed in the Senate, 49-51. Nevertheless, the Affordable Care Act survived.

As a representative, Mr. Knight found that he was in an increasingly difficult position. As a Republican in a swing district, he tried to chart a moderate course. Still, because of the increasingly polarized nature of party politics and the shift of the Republican party to the right, this was increasingly difficult. As a result, in 2018, Knight was defeated by his Democratic opponent.

COVID-19 in a Federal System: Challenges and Opportunities

By Morgan Sandhu, J.D.

Federalism sits at the very core of American government. Yet, the coronavirus pandemic has pushed federalism under the microscope, exposing its strengths and weaknesses in turn. While a number of other countries also have federal systems, [1]  federalism has been uniquely important in the United States’ response to COVID-19. Since the Trump administration largely  abdicated responsibility  to the states, there was virtually no unified national response. Thus, each state’s response became particularly important. States have also had wildly divergent responses to the pandemic. President Biden’s tenure began with federalism in tatters and the United States continuing to struggle to contain and control COVID-19. Further, the ongoing vaccination campaign requires a high level of coordination between the states and the federal government, once again raising similar questions about the efficacy of the United States’ multi-layered federal system.

Federalism tested:

Federalism recognizes that there is a role for both the states and the federal government in policy making.  Many scholars  have focused on the strain that COVID-19 has placed on the American federalist framework. As the Brookings Institute  reported , “The traditional story of federalism recognizes that the national government can make policy in some areas, while the states reserve the right to regulate in other areas. However, as the pandemic has highlighted, things are not always that clear-cut. The constitutional boundaries between state and federal authority are increasingly difficult to ascertain.” Similarly, the lines of political accountability may be equally blurred. Further, federalism can leave  local ,  state , and the federal government at odds with each other, at times even working at cross purposes.

While  any crisis may test federalism , COVID-19 has been specifically challenging,  laying bare  pre-existing dynamics and inequalities between the states. As a number of public health scholars  recognize , federalism can exacerbate inequities, especially in a public health crisis. For example, many of the states with the deepest needs and highest rates of current COVID-19 transmission are poorly equipped to respond to emergencies  due to low taxes and distrust of government , leading to inadequate infrastructure. Further, in the first months of the pandemic, states were often pitted against each other,  competing for critical supplies  like PPE and ventilators.

The  federal response to coronavirus  was “alarmingly slow to develop” and relied primarily on voluntary compliance. There was little unified national action. As a result, the “ defining feature  of the U.S. response to COVID-19 . . . [was] localized action against a threat that lost its local character [months] ago.” The local response has been patchwork; some states and localities have implemented aggressive disease-mitigation measures, including mandatory mask orders, stay-at-home orders, business closures, and required quarantine for out-of-state travelers. Others have not. Notably, given the borderless spread of COVID-19, some regions have  formed coalitions of neighboring states  to coordinate their response and prevent the spread. Federalism has provided the flexibility to states to respond. Nevertheless, the lack of a national response has almost certainly led to the impact of coronavirus in the United States being far worse – “ When dealing with  questions of contagion, a novel experiment in one state can easily endanger the rest of the country.” Further, politicization of the pandemic and the accompanying orders has led to drastically different state responses; without a unifying federal scheme, there is no minimum guaranteed level of safety. Without national coordination states have been  forced into direct competition  with each other, especially early in the pandemic, for critical medical supplies.

At times, individual state’s actions seemed to  challenge the very premises of federalism . The unified nature of the United States proceeds from a promise of free travel and unburdened commerce between the states. As the Supreme Court  has explained , “The word ‘travel’ is not found in the text of the Constitution. Yet the ‘constitutional right to travel from one State to another’ is firmly embedded in our jurisprudence.” But, the COVID-19 pandemic often  threatened this promise , as states attempted to protect their citizens through quarantine and travel restrictions that frequently functionally barred out-of-state travelers.

Despite the many challenges it created, federalism also occasionally fulfilled its promise. As  one author put  it, “Still, a varied response is better than nothing. If responsibility for addressing the coronavirus fell strictly on federal shoulders, the situation might be even more dire, given Trump’s laissez-faire approach.” In contrast, a reinvigorated local approach by the 50 states and thousands of localities demonstrates the critical role they play in ensuring citizens’ well-being.

Case study: vaccination

One specific area where federalism concerns have been paramount is in the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine. President Trump’s approach is well summarized in his December 30 th   tweet : “The Federal Government has distributed the vaccines to the states. Now it is up to the states to administer. Get moving!” The federal government’s vaccine distribution has been  bumpy ; states have once again been left to fill the void. Here, federalism has failed. As one professor describes it, the current vaccination effort is  jumbled :

“Success depends on interlocking the roles of the key players: the federal government, in coordinating the production and distribution of the vaccine; state governments, in setting priorities for who gets vaccinated when and where; county officials, in resuscitating the nation’s staggering public health system; municipal officials, in connecting their citizens to the vaccine; and private companies ranging from CVS to Walgreens to Walmart, among others, to administer the vaccine, to UPS and FedEx and the airlines to get the vaccine to their doors.”

Under the Trump administration, each state set its own vaccination prioritization, often breaking with (voluntary) federal guidance. This patchwork has created confusion and uncertainty about when people can be vaccinated, particularly in light of demand for vaccines that far outstrips supply. At times, private actors like hospitals have been making the decisions and doing so in ways that  do not comport with state guidelines . In turn, federal leaders failed to issue clear guidance on how vaccines would be allocated, when they would arrive, and what can be excepted going forward. Accordingly, states have struggled to make informed policies or figure out how best to move forward. Rather than a collaboration between the federal government and the states, there has been a vacuum that states are struggling to fill. This is only further complicated by the logistical hurdles posed by the vaccine itself, such as specialized storage requirements and the need for two doses. Thus, vaccination is currently proceeding far more slowly than expected. For the vaccination effort to ultimately and quickly succeed, a revitalized federalism that better coordinated between the state and federal levels was necessary.

In recognition of this, President Biden had planned to create a national vaccination plan, and requested $20 billion in funding,  in part to  build mass vaccination centers and send mobile vaccination units to underserved areas. Over his first months in office, this plan  morphed . On March 11th, 2021, President Biden directed all states to expand eligibility to the general public by May 1st, announced a planned increase in vaccination centers, and expanded the category of eligible vaccinators. Most states have since announced plans to follow Biden’s directive and are rapidly expanding eligibility. The overall pace of vaccination has dramatically increased, with an  average of 2.5 million shots being given per day .

Transition from Trump to Biden: clues as to what may come

President Biden’s coronavirus response has been and is expected to remain starkly different than that of President Trump. President Biden centered coronavirus as a critical issue that his administration plans to tackle early on; it is almost certain that the federal government will play a much larger and more dominant role in his administration’s response to COVID-19. Similarly, as discussed above, President Biden has  articulated  a more hands-on approach for vaccine distribution. However, it remains unclear exactly how President Biden will generally approach federal-state relations.  One of the best insights into  “the former vice president’s approach to federalism comes from his work in directing the Obama administration’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” The core of that work was pumping a large part of $800 million in funding to state and local governments; President Biden emphasized speed and transparency, entrusting the states with how to use the money but committing to real-time oversight. He has indicated that the federal government must play a more central role in combatting coronavirus, which will re-orient the balance of policy between state and local government and the federal government. This changed response also recognizes the ongoing need for collaboration between the states themselves, with President Biden  working directly with governors  to coordinate cross-state collaboration.

[1]  For an excellent compilation of international articles and perspectives on Federalism and COVID-19, see  https://www.mcgill.ca/federalism/federalism-covid-19-pandemic  where a team of scholars has created a compendium of resources.

This article was originally published on the COVID-19 and the Law blog

Morgan Sandhu graduated from Harvard Law School in May 2022.

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

The Petrie-Flom Center Staff

The Petrie-Flom Center staff often posts updates, announcements, and guests posts on behalf of others.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Sign up for our newsletter

CBSE NCERT Solutions

NCERT and CBSE Solutions for free

Case Study Questions Chapter 2 Federalism

Please refer to the Case Study Questions Chapter 2 Federalism with answers provided for Class 10 Social Science. These solved case study based questions are expected to come in the Class 10 Economics exam in the current academic year. We have provided Case study for Class 10 Social Science for all chapters here. You should practise these solved case studies to get more marks in examinations.

Chapter 2 Federalism Case Study Questions Class 10 Social Science

1. Read the source given below and answer the questions that follows:

A third tier of federalism was added in the form of Panchayats and Municipalities. As in any federation, these different tiers enjoy separate jurisdiction. The Constitution clearly provided a threefold distribution of legislative powers between the Union Government and the State Governments. Thus, it contains three lists: Union List includes subjects of national importance such as defence of the country, foreign affairs, banking, communications and currency. They are included in this list because we need a uniform policy on these matters throughout the country. The Union Government alone can make laws relating to the subjects mentioned in the Union List. State List contains subjects of State and local importance such as police, trade, commerce, agriculture and irrigation. The State Governments forest, trade unions, marriage, adoption and succession. Both the Union as well as the State Governments can make laws on the subjects mentioned in this list. If their laws conflict with each other, the law made by the Union Government will prevail. According to our constitution, the Union Government has the power to legislate on these ‘residuary’ subjects.

Answer the following MCQs by choosing the most appropriate option.

(i) What is the third tier of government known as? (a) Village Panchayats (b) State government (c) Local self-government (d) Zila Parishad

(ii) The Constitution of India (a) divided powers between centre and states in three lists. (b) divided powers between centre and states in two lists. (c) listed the powers of the states and left the undefined powers to the state. (d) Specified the powers of the states and left the residuary powers with the centre.

(iii) Which of the following subjects is not included in the Union list? (a) Defence (b) Foreign affairs (c) Police (d) Banking

(iv) Subjects like computer software comes in the (a) Union List (b) State List (c) Concurrent List (d) Residuary List

2. Read the source given below and answer the questions that follows:

Federalism is a system of government in which the power is divided between a central authority and various constituent units of the country. Usually, a federation has two levels of government. One is the government for the entire country that is usually responsible for a few subjects of common national interest. The others are governments at the level of provinces or states that look after much of the day-to-day administering of their state. Both these levels of governments enjoy their power independent of the other. In this sense, federations are contrasted with unitary governments. Under the unitary system, either there is only one level of government or the subunits are subordinate to the central government. The central government can pass on orders to the provincial or the local government. But in a federal system, the central government cannot order the state government to do something. State government has powers of its own for which it is not answerable to the central government. Both these governments are separately answerable to the people.

(i) Identify the Government that consists of two or more levels. (a) Coalition Government (b) Community Government (c) Unitary Government (d) Federal Government

(ii) What is true regarding sources of revenue in a federal system? (a) States have no financial powers or independent sources of revenue. (b) States are dependent on revenue or funds on the central government. (c) Sources of revenue for each level of government are clearly specified to ensure its financial autonomy. (d) States have no financial autonomy.

(iii) The Constitution of India originally provided for: (a) a two-tier system of government (b) a three-tier system of government (c) a single-tier system of government (d) a four-tier system of government

(iv) Which of the following is incorrect regarding a unitary government? (a) There is either only one level of government or the sub-units are subordinate to the central government. (b) The central government can pass on orders to the provincial government. (c) A state government is conservable to central government. (d) The powers of state governments are guaranteed by the Constitution.

3. Read the source given below and answer the following questions:

A second test for Indian federation is the language policy. Our Constitution did not give the status of national language to any one language. Hindi was identified as the official language. But Hindi is the mother tongue of only about 40 per cent of Indians. Therefore, there were many safeguards to protect other languages. Besides Hindi, there are 21 other languages recognised as Scheduled Languages by the Constitution. A candidate in an examination conducted for the Central Government positions may opt to take the examination in any of these languages. States too have their own official languages. Much of the government work takes place in the official language of the concerned State. Unlike Sri Lanka, the leaders of our country adopted a very cautious attitude in spreading the use of Hindi. According to the Constitution, the use of English for official purposes was to stop in 1965. However, many non-Hindi speaking States demanded that the use of English continue. In Tamil Nadu, this movement took a violent form. The Central Government responded by agreeing to continue the use of English along with Hindi for official purposes. Many critics think that this solution favoured the English speaking elite. Promotion of Hindi continues to be the official policy of the Government of India. Promotion does not mean that the Central Government can impose Hindi on States where people speak a different language. The flexibility shown by Indian political leaders helped our country avoid the kind of situation that Sri Lanka finds itself in.

(i) The number of Scheduled Languages in India is (a) 21 (b) 22 (c) 23 (d) 25

(ii) When was the use of English for official purpose stopped? (a) 1956 (b) 1958 (c) 1960 (d) 1965

(iii) Here are three reactions to the language policy followed in India. Which of the following holds true in the case of India? (a) The policy of accommodation has strengthened national unity. (b) Language based states have divided us by making everyone conscious of their language. (c) The language policy has only helped to consolidate the dominance of English over all other languages. (d) All the above

(iv) Which language is recognised as the national language by the ©Constitution of India? (a) Hindi (b) English (c) Tamil (d) None of these

4. Read the source given below and answer the following questions:

The exact balance of power between the central and the state government varies from one federation to another. This balance depends mainly on the historical context in which the federation was formed. There are two kinds of routes through which federations have been formed. The first route involves independent States coming together on their own to form a bigger unit, so that by pooling sovereignty and retaining identity they can increase their security. This type of ‘coming together’ federations include the USA, Switzerland and Australia. In this first category of federations, all the constituent States usually have equal power and are strong vis-à-vis the federal government. The second route is where a large country decides to divide its power between the constituent States and the national government. India, Spain and Belgium are examples of this kind of ‘holding together’ federations. In this second category, the central government tends to be more powerful vis-à-vis the States.

(i) Which one of the following countries is good example of ‘holding together’ federations? (a) USA (b) Switzerland (c) Australia (d) India

(ii) Which of the following is not an example of ‘coming together’ federations? (a) India (b) USA (c) Switzerland (d) Australia

(iii) Which are the basic objectives of a federal system? (a) To safeguard and promote unity of the country (b) To accommodate regional diversity (c) To share powers among different communities (d) Both (a) and (b)

(iv) In a ‘Holding together federation’: (A) A large country divides its power between constituent states and the national government. (B) The Central government tends to be more powerful vis-a-vis the States. (C) All the constituent states usually have equal powers. (D) Constituent states have unequal powers. Which of the above statements are correct? (a) (A), (B), (C) and (D) (b) (A) and (D) (c) (B) and (C) (d) (A), (B) and (D)

5. Read the source given below and answer the questions that follows:

Sri Lanka emerged as an independent country in 1948. The leaders of the Sinhala community sought to secure dominance over government by virtue of their majority. As a result, the democratically elected government adopted a series of MAJORITARIAN measures to establish Sinhala supremacy. In 1956, an Act was passed to recognise Sinhala as the only official language, thus disregarding Tamil. The governments followed preferential policies that favoured Sinhala applicants for university positions and government jobs. A new constitution stipulated that the state shall protect and foster Buddhism. All these government measures, coming one after the other, gradually increased the feeling of alienation among the Sri Lankan Tamils. They felt that none of the major political parties led by the Buddhist Sinhala leaders was sensitive to their language and culture. They felt that the constitution and government policies denied them equal political rights, discriminated against them in getting jobs and other opportunities and ignored their interests. As a result, the relations between the Sinhala and Tamil communities strained over time.

(i) Tamil natives of Sri Lanka are called the: (a) Indian Tamils (b) Muslim Tamils (c) Sri Lankan Tamils (d) Christian Tamils

(ii) A belief that the majority community should be able to rule a country in whichever way it wants, by disregarding the wishes and needs of the minority is: (a) Power Sharing (b) Central Government (c) Majoritarianism (d) Community Government

(iii) What is the state religion of Sri Lanka? (a) Buddhism (b) Hinduism (c) Islam (d) Christianity

(iv) Identify the major social group that constituted the largest share in the population of Sri Lanka. (a) Sri Lankan Tamils (b) Indian Tamils (c) Muslims (d) Sinhalas

Very Short Answer Type Questions

Question. Which government has the power to legislate on ‘Residuary’ subjects in India? Ans.  Union Government.

Question. Who presides over the meeting of the Municipal Corporation? Ans.  The Mayor/Municipal Commissioner/ Alderman.

Question. What do you mean by a Concurrent List? What subjects are included in this list? Ans.  A concurrent list includes 66 subjects over which both the centre and the state possess equal powers. Both of them can make laws on these subjects and in case of a deadlock, the will of the centre prevails over that of the states. education, forest, trade unions, marriage, adoption and succession are examples of certain subjects included in this list.

Question. Different tiers of government govern the same citizens, but each tier has its own JURISDICTION in specific matters of legislation, taxation and administration. The jurisdictions of the respective levels or tiers of government are specified in the constitution. So the existence and authority of each tier of government is constitutionally guaranteed. Read the source given what is jurisdiction? Ans.  Jurisdiction is the area over which someone has legal authority. Jurisdiction can be defined by a geographical area or in terms of subjects.

Question. Which institution has been created in each state of India to conduct panchayat and municipal elections? Ans.  State Election Commissions have been created in each state of India for conducting panchayat and municipal elections.

Question. Who has the special powers in administering the Union Territories of India? Ans.  Central Government

Question. Arrange the following institutions of power according to the size of their jurisdiction in increasing order: (a) Panchayat Samiti or Mandal (b) State Government (c) Gram Panchayat (d) Zilla Parishad Options: (i) (a)—(b)—(c)—(d) (ii) (d)—(a)—(b)—(c) (iii) (c)—(a)—(d)—(b) (iv) (b)—(a)—(c)—(d) Ans.  (iii) (c)—(a)—(d)—(b)

Question. State any one step taken in Belgium to rule out the problem of regional differences and cultural diversities. Ans.  The Constitution of Belgium established equality by maintaining equal number of French and Dutch speaking people in the central government so that a single dominant community does not make majoritarian decisions.

Question. What do you understand by the Union list? Write its main features. Ans.  This list that includes subjects of national importance such as defence of the country, foreign affairs, banking, communications and currency is called union list. Following are its main features: (A) The subjects that included in the union list need a uniform policy throughout the country (B) The Central government alone can make laws on the subjects mentioned in the union list.

Question. Define a Coalition Government? Ans.  A coalition government is a government formed when none of the contesting parties get majority seats in the elections for Lok Sabha or Legislative Assemblies. In such a case, two or more parties form a government by coming together, making an alliance and adopting a common programme. NDA led by BJP under Prime Minister Narender Modi ruling presently in India is an example of a coalition government while the Congress led UPA under Manmohan Singh had been the ruling coalition government in the country for 10 years.

Question. Who is a mayor? Ans.  The head of municipal corporation is called mayor.

Question. What percentage of reservation is given to women in local administration in India? Ans.  One third or 33% seats are reserved for women in local administration in India.

Short Answer Type Questions

Question. How is sharing of power between the union and the state governments fundamental to the structure of the Constitution of India? Explain. Ans.  Sharing of power between states and the centre governments is fundamental to the structure of the Constitution of India, because without this division of power, it will be impossible to coexist in a diverse country like India. The states are significant parts of the union and the jurisdiction of both the state and union overlap at many areas. Hence, it is important to demarcate the boundaries, which are effectively done by the Constitution in India.

Question. Describe any three features of Federalism in India. Ans.  (A) Indian federalism is a threefold distribution based on three lists: (i) Union List on which centre make laws such as defence, currency, etc.  (ii) State List on which state make laws such as police, trade, agriculture, etc. (iii) Concurrent List on which both Centre and State Legislates such as education, marriage, etc. (B) Centre legislate on ‘residuary’ subjects (C) High Courts and the Supreme Court sorts out the dispute between centre and state.

Features of federalism are: (1) There are two or more levels of government. India has three levels. (2) Each level of government has its own jurisdiction in matters of legislation, taxation and administration, even though they govern the same citizens. (3) The power and functions of each tier of government is specified and guaranteed by the Constitution. (4) The Supreme Court has been given the power to settle disputes between different levels of government. (5) The fundamental provisions of the Constitution cannot be altered by any one level of government alone. (6) Sources of revenue for different levels are specified by the Constitution.

Question. Describe any three features of unitary govern-ment. Ans.  The features of unitary government are as follows: (1) In unitary government, only a single central government controls all the powers. (2) The regional units are subordinate to the central government. The central government can pass the orders for state and local self government. (3) The Constitution could be published or unspoken according to people’s desires.

Question. Name any two subjects that are included in the Concurrent List. How are laws made on these subjects? Explain. Ans.  Subjects that are included in the Concurrent List are: (1) Education (2) Forest (3) Marriage (4) Adoption (5) Succession On these subjects, laws are made in the following ways: (1) Both the union as well as the state government can make laws on the subjects mentioned in this list. (2) If their laws conflict with each other, the law made by the union government will prevail.

Question. Describe any three steps taken to strengthen local self-governments, by the Constitutional Amendment, 1992. Ans.  Steps taken to strengthen the local selfgovernments by the Constitutional Amendment, 1992 are: (1) Holding regular elections under the local government bodies has been made compulsory. (2) Reservation of seats for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes was introduced in the elected bodies. (3) One third i.e., 33% of the seats are reserved for women in all elected bodies. (4) An independent institution, called the State Election Commission, was established in each state to conduct panchayat and municipal election.

Question. Under which type of federation is India classified? Mention any two features of such a federation. Ans.  India comes under ‘holding together federations’. Features of the ‘holding together federations’ are: (1) It decides to divide its power between the constituent states and the national government. (2) In this federation, the central government tends to be more powerful than the state government. (3) In this system, different constituent units of the federation have unequal powers.

Question. Explain in detail the meaning of federalism. Ans.  Meaning of federalism: (A) Federalism is a system of government in which the power is divided between a central authority and various constituent units of the country. (B) Usually a federal country has two levels of government. One is the government for the entire country that is usually responsible for a few subjects of national interest. The others are the provincial or state governments that look after much of the day-to-day administering of their state. (C) Both these levels of governments enjoy their power independent of the other.

Question. What is a trade barrier? Why did the Indian government impose barriers to foreign trade and foreign investments after independence? Give reasons. Ans.  Trade Barriers are restrictions imposed by governments on import and export of goods in form of taxes or duties. The government can use barriers to regulate foreign trade. Reasons for putting barriers to foreign trade and foreign investment by the Indian Government were: To protect the native craftsmen and domestic producers from foreign competition. Indian industries were only beginning to operate. They could not compete with finer quality products of cheaper price from foreign countries.

Question. Describe any three features of federal govenment. OR State any three important features of Federalism Ans.  Key features of federalism: (A) There are two or more levels (or tiers) of government. (B) Different tiers of government govern the same citizens, but each tier has its own jurisdiction in specific matters of legislation, taxation and administration. (C) The jurisdictions of the respective levels or tiers of government are specified in the constitution. (D) The fundamental provisions of the constitution cannot be unilaterally changed by one level of government. Such changes require the consent of both the levels of government. (E) Courts have the power to interpret the constitution and the powers of different levels of government. The highest court acts as an umpire if disputes arise between different levels of government in the exercise of their respective powers.

Question. Evaluate the strengths and limitations of local self-government in a democracy. Ans.  Strengths and Limitations of Local Self Government

Strengths: (A) Problems and issues are best settled at local level. (B) Many elected representatives in the panchayats and municipalities etc., all over the country. (C) Constitutional status for local government has helped to deepen democracy in our country. (D) It has also increased women’s representation and voice in our democracy.

Limitations: (A) Elections of gram sabhas are not held regularly. (B) Most state governments have not transferred significant powers to the local governments. (C) Adequate resources are not there with local govt.

Long Answer Type Questions

Question. What has been the language policy of India after independence? Explain in five points. Ans.  Language policy of India: (A) No language in India has got the status of national language. (B) Hindi was identified as official language, spoken by 40 per cent of Indians. Therefore, safeguards are taken to protect other languages. (C) Including Hindi there are 22 languages recognised as scheduled languages by the constitution. A candidate in an examination conducted for the Central Government positions may opt to take the examination in any of these languages. (D) States too have their own official languages. Most of government work is done in the official language of the concerned State. (E) Use of English continues in India along with Hindi for offcial purposes.

Question. “India is a federal country. Do you agree? Explain. Ans.  “India is a Federal Country. This can be asserted through following arguments: (1) Indian Constitution declared India as a Union of States post Independence; Indian union is based on the principals of federalism. (2) The Constitution originally provided a two-tier system of government including the union government representing the Union of India and the state governments. A third-tier was added in the form of Panchayats and Municipalities later. Power division is a characteristic of Federalism. (3) The three-fold distribution of legislative powers between the Union and State governments, containing Union list, State List and the Concurrent List. (4) Neither the Parliament nor the state legislative assemblies can make any changes in the Constitution alone. Any changes to it has to be first passed by both the houses of the parliament with atleast two-third majority and later by state assemblies with two thirds majority. (5) The judiciary plays an important role in overseeing the implementation of constitutional provisions and procedures. (6) The Union and the State governments have the power to raise resources by levying taxes in order to carry on the governments. (7) Indian System fulfills the dual objective of a federation through its administration system: to safeguard and promote unity of the country, while at the same time accommodate regional diversity.

Question. How is a federal government different from the unitary form of government? Ans.  The difference between federations or federal governments and unitary governments is as follows:

Question. Describe the importance of a third tier of government in a vast country like India. Ans.  The importance of a third tier of government in a vast country like India is as follows: (1) A major step towards decentralisation was taken in 1992. The Constitution was amended to make the third tier of democracy more powerful and effective. (2) Rural local government is popularly known by the name panchayati raj. Each village, or a group of villages in some states, has a gram panchayat. This is a council consisting of several ward members, often called panchs. (3) A few gram panchayats are grouped together to form what is usually called a panchayat samiti or block or mandal. The members of this representative body are elected by all the panchayat members in that area. (4) All the panchayat samitis or mandals in a district together constitute the zila (district) parishad. Most members of the zila parishad are elected. Members of the Lok Sabha and MLAs of that district and some other officials of other district level bodies are also its members. Zila parishad’s chairperson is the political head of the zila parishad. (5) Local government bodies exist for urban areas as municipalities are set up in towns. Big cities are constituted into municipal corporations. Both municipalities and municipal corporations are controlled by elected bodies consisting of people’s representatives.

Question. Describe any five features of federalism. Ans.  The main features of federalism are as follows: (1) Two or more levels of government:  Usually, a federation has two levels of government- at the central level and another at the state or regional level which may or may not be subordinate to the central government. In India, third tier of government has been added in the form of Panchayats and Municipalities. (2) Same citizens with separate jurisdiction:  Different tiers of government govern the same citizens but each tier or level of government has its own jurisdiction in specific matters of legislation, taxation and administration. (3) Jurisdiction specified by the constitution:  Thejurisdiction or powers of each tier or level of government are specified in the constitution. So the existence and authority of each tier of government are constitutionally guaranteed. (4) No constitutional change without the consent of both the governments:  The fundamental provisions of the constitution cannot be unilaterally changed by one level of government. Such changes require the consent of both the levels of government. (5) Dual objectives:  The federal system has dual objectives: to safeguard and promote the unity of the country and accommodate the regional diversity simultaneously. (6) Sources of revenue:  The sources of revenue for each level of government are clearly specified to ensure its financial autonomy. (7) The highest court acts as an umpire:  Courts interpret the constitution and the powers of different levels of government. The highest court acts as an umpire if disputes arise between two or more levels of governments in exercising of their powers.

Question. ‘The Centre-State relations in India have been changed from time to time since independence.’ Explain the statement with argument. Ans.   The Centre-State Relations in India before 1990: For a long time, the same party ruled at the centre and in most of the States in India after independence. The State governments didn’t exercise their rights as autonomous federal units. As and when the ruling party at the state level was different, the parties that ruled at the Centre tried to undermine the power of the States. In those days, the Central government would often misuse the Constitution to dismiss the State governments that were controlled by rival parties. This undermined the spirit of federalism. The Centre-State Relations in India after 1990: Period after 1990 saw the rise of regional political parties in many States of the country. This was also the beginning of the era of coalition governments at the centre. Since no single party got a clear majority in the Lok Sabha, the major national parties had to enter into an alliance with many parties including several regional parties to form a government at the centre. This led to new culture of power sharing and respect for the autonomy of State Governments. This federal power sharing is more effective today which has made it difficult for central government to dismiss State governments in an arbitrary manner.

Related Posts

The Triumph of Surgery Class 10 English Important Questions

Popular struggles and movements class 10 social science important questions.

Important Questions Class 10 Science Board Exam

What is Federalism?

What is federalism and its governmental forms.

The word “federal” is derived from the Latin word foedus , meaning covenant, pact, or treaty. Federalism is both a principle and a form of government.

As a principle, federalism is concerned with combining self-rule and shared rule and linking individuals, groups, and polities in lasting but limited union so as to provide for the energetic pursuit of common ends while sustaining the integrity of each partner, thereby fostering unity and diversity, while checking forces of centralization and anarchy. The federal principle aims at establishing justice among the consenting partners and ensuring liberty.

A federal arrangement is a partnership, established and regulated by a covenant. A covenant is a voluntary agreement, often written, between co-equals who agree to come together and form a lasting union for certain purposes such as the common defense and general welfare. In contrast to a social contract, the word “covenant” suggests a moral dimension and appeal to a higher moral source. The U.S. Declaration of Independence is an example.

The internal relationships of a federal system reflect a special kind of sharing that must prevail among the partners based on a mutual recognition of the integrity of each partner and the attempt to foster a special unity among them. As a political principle, federalism is concerned with the constitutional diffusion of power so that the constituting members in a federal arrangement share in the process of common policy-making and administration by right, while the activities of the general government are conducted in ways that maintain the integrities of the constituting members. Federal systems do this by constitutionally distributing power among general and constituent governing bodies in a manner intended to protect the existence and authority of all. Basic policies are ideally made and implemented through negotiation based on mutual consent among the members so that all share in the system’s decision-making and executing processes. As such, federalism is both a structure and a process.

Accordingly, federalism is a voluntary form of government and mode of governance that establishes unity while preserving diversity by constitutionally uniting separate political communities (e.g., the 13 original U.S. states) into a limited, but encompassing, political community (e.g., the United States) called a federal polity. Federalism may also be used to establish and organize nongovernmental organizations such as interest groups and political parties – a common practice in federal polities.

Powers in a federal polity are constitutionally divided and shared between a general government having certain responsibilities for general matters such as the common defense affecting the whole political community and constituent governments having certain local or regional responsibilities. Both the general government and the constituent governments have constitutional authority to govern individuals directly (e.g., regulate behavior and levy taxes), and each has final decision-making authority over certain constitutionally delegated or reserved matters. Some constitutional powers belong exclusively to the general government; others belong exclusively to the constituent governments. Still others are concurrent—that is, exercised by both the general and constituent governments. Some federal constitutions contain a list of concurrent powers. Some federal constitutions delegate powers to the general government and reserve all other powers to the constituent governments (e.g., the United States); other constitutions delegate powers to the constituent governments and reserve all other powers to the general government (e.g., Canada).

A federal polity, therefore, can be thought of as a matrix of governments looking something like a Rubik’s Cube or honeycomb composed of multiple cells of power. Constituent governments represent the cells of the matrix with a narrower scope of authority than the general government. However, these are differences of scale not status. By contrast, most unitary systems are organized along the lines of a hierarchical pyramid having levels of government in which differences are based on higher or lower status of authority. The imagery is important. Federal systems have no single center; hence, they are non-centralized rather than decentralized in form. In a federal system, public policies are ideally formulated by negotiation and implemented by collaboration.

Some federal polities, such as the United States, have a dualistic structure in which the general and constituent governments independently exercise certain separate powers; other federal polities, such as Germany, have integrated structures in which the general government enacts framework legislation that is implemented by the constituent governments. Most federal polities reflect some mixture of dualism and integration.

Most federal polities have two sets of constitutional government: a general government and regional constituent governments. A few federal polities, such as India and Nigeria, constitutionally recognize local government as the third order of constituent government.

In various federal countries, the general government is called the federal, national, union, or central government. Constituent governments may be called autonomous communities, cantons, Länder , provinces, regions, or states.

In some federal polities, all or some of the constituent political communities have a distinct linguistic, ethnic, racial, religious, and/or ‘national’ identity (e.g., Belgium, Canada, India, and Switzerland). In others, such as Germany, Mexico, and the United States, the constituent political communities have distinct, but not ethnic ‘national,’ political identities forged over time by the people who inhabit each territorial jurisdiction.

Some federal polities are formed by uniting previously separate political communities (e.g., Australia and the United States); others are formed by devolving powers from a centralized unitary polity to regional governments (e.g., Belgium and South Africa). A few, such as India, reflect both types of formation. Some of the world’s oldest modern federations are the United States (1789), Mexico (1824), Switzerland (1848), Canada (1867), and Australia (1901).

Whatever the precise form of federalism, most federal polities experience widespread relations among their governments called intergovernmental relations. These may entail relations between the general and constituent governments, as well as local governments, among the constituent governments themselves (e.g., interstate relations in the United States), between the constituent governments and their local governments (e.g., state-local relations in the United States), and relations among local governments themselves (e.g., interlocal relations). Ideally, intergovernmental relations are cooperative, collaborative, and competitive with mutual coordination and adjustment. However, partisan differences, personal ambition, social movements, and many other factors can make intergovernmental relations collusive, cooptive, conflictual, and/or coercive.

Different federal polities have different purposes and values. The American federal system, wrote James Madison, is intended to secure individual liberty and make republican government possible on a continental scale, in part by establishing a common market among the states to foster economic prosperity and by uniting the states for a common defense of the country. Most federal countries are democracies but some countries with federal constitutions, such as Russia, are not democratic. A federal democracy ordinarily requires a supportive political or civic culture that values federalism, democracy, and constitutional government.

An older form of federalism is called confederation. The principal differences between a confederation and a federation (which is the form of federalism invented by the U.S. founders in 1787) is that a confederation cannot legislate for individuals (e.g., levy taxes, regulate behavior, and conscript people into the military). Each constituent political community has one vote in the confederation assembly, and constituent political communities can secede from the confederation. In practice, the line between a federal and confederal system can be blurred, as in the European Union, which has a few federal features along with many confederal features.

There is no single, best model of federalism. Most federal polities are products of mutual accommodations achieved through bargaining and negotiation. The features of a country’s federal system reflect the influences of history, circumstances, and configurations of political forces at the founding and over time. Every federal polity experiences change, usually around periods of more centralization or more noncentralization.

Although there are only 21 to 27 federal countries (depending on how strictly one defines federalism), federal countries house slightly more than 40 percent of the world’s population. This is due to the large population sizes of some federal countries, especially India, the United States, and Nigeria, and to the fact that seven of the world’s eight territorially largest countries are federal.

An important historical feature of modern federalism is that it enabled democracy to be viable on a large scale for the first time in human history. Prior to the formation of the American federal union, most territorially large political systems were imperial empires; the few other large systems were weak and usually short-lived leagues or confederations.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

" * " indicates required fields

The Center for the Study of Federalism is a nonpartisan, interdisciplinary research and education institution dedicated to supporting and advancing scholarship and public understanding of federal theories, principles, institutions, and processes as practical means of organizing power in free societies. Among other things, the Center publishes Publius: The Journal of Federalism and provides grants for scholarly research on federalism.

• Subscribe to Publius
• Privacy Policy

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

© 2024 Center for the Study of Federalism. All Rights Reserved.

• Why Federalism?
• Where is Federalism in the Constitution?
• Federalism Explained
• Publius: The Journal of Federalism
• Who was Publius – The Real Guy?
• Constitutional Provisions
• Fiscal Federalism
• Historical Events
• Institutions
• Intergovernmental Relations
• Legislation
• Models and Theories of Federalism
• Policy Areas
• Supreme Court Cases
• Historical Figures
• Federalism Scholars
• American Federalism
• Other Federal Countries
• Comparative Federalism
• Federalism Digests
• CSF Projects
• The Federalism Report
• Collaborations
• Federalism Podcasts
• U.S. State and Local Firsts
• Teaching Resources
• Annotated Resources
• Teaching Awards
• Mission Statement
• Grants & Awards
• History of CSF
• CSF Fellows
• Elazar Tributes