Getting a Grip on Federalism

The two U.S. Politics classes I teach are getting both more interesting and more complex. My students seem to be doing fine, for the most part, with the three branches of the national government, the two parts of Congress, and the related concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances. However, when all of these different entities and ideas get layered on the fairly abstract (and for British students foreign) notion of "Federalism," things can get difficult.

Think about this, for example: Why is the death penalty allowed in most states but not in about a dozen or so? The answer, of course, is that in the U.S., states have substantial powers, including whether or not to inflict capital punishment. But then, as we Americans know, there are many instances when states can't do what they want to and have to yield to federal (national) law. What are those situations, my students want to know. Give us some clarity; tell us the rules. Could there be a Constitutional Amendment passed? (Yes, that's possible). How about a federal law that supercedes a state law even wtihout a Constitutional Amendment? (Yes, that's possible too.) How about a Supreme Court decision that restricts state powers, without either a Constitutional Amendment or a federal law? (Yes, unfortunately for students struggling for certainly, that's possible too.) The "it depends" response is, unsuprisingly, not entirely satisfactory.

Fortunately for all concerned -- students and teacher -- the bell rings. But, Federalism and its many ramifications will still be there, lurking and confounding, when we suit up again tomorrow.