Читать книгу Keeping the Republic - Christine Barbour - Страница 118

Although the Supreme Court, since the days of Marbury v. Madison, had endorsed an extension of the range of the national government, the conservative Supreme Court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed down a set of decisions beginning in 1991 that signaled a rejection of congressional encroachment on the prerogatives of the states—a power shift that was dubbed “devolution.” However, that movement came to an abrupt stop in 2002 following the attacks of September 11, 2001. The Court continues to have a conservative majority under Chief Justice John Roberts, and that is unlikely to change as long as Donald Trump is president.²⁰

Whether or not the Supreme Court’s decisions give the federal government greater latitude in exercising its powers, the states are still responsible for the policies that most affect our lives. For instance, the states retain primary responsibility for everything from education to regulation of funeral parlors, from licensing physicians to building roads and telling us how fast we can drive on them. Most questions of contemporary federalism involve the national government trying to influence how the states and localities go about providing the goods and services and regulating the behaviors that have traditionally been within their jurisdictions.

Why should the national government care so much about what the states do? There are several reasons. First, from a Congress member’s perspective, it is easier to solve many social and economic problems at the national level, especially when those problems, like race discrimination or air pollution, affect the populations of multiple states. In some instances, national problem solving involves redistributing resources from one state or region to another, which individual states, on their own, would be unwilling or unable to do. Second, members of Congress profit electorally by passing laws and regulations that bring resources like highway funds; welfare benefits; urban renewal money; and assistance to farmers, ranchers, miners, and educators to their states. Doing well by constituents gets incumbents reelected.²¹ Third, sometimes members of Congress prefer to adopt national legislation to preempt what states may be doing or planning to do. In some cases they might object to state laws, as Congress did when it passed civil rights legislation against the strong preferences of the southern states. In other cases they might enact legislation to prevent states from making fifty different regulatory laws for the same product. If Congress makes a set of nationally binding regulations, businesses or corporations—generally large contributors to politicians—do not have to incur the expense of altering their products or services to meet different state standards.

Profiles in Citizenship Susana Martinez

Courtesy of the office of Governor Susana Martinez

Being governor isn’t on everyone’s list of childhood aspirations, but it had been on Susana Martinez’s since she was about fourteen. “I enjoyed watching the news where we would watch senators and congressmen debate each other and argue their points. That I really enjoyed; who would make the better point, and why.” But being a senator didn’t appeal. She says, “I knew that as one of a hundred, how much change can you bring when you have to convince so many more? I thought the best place to cause the greatest change was being a governor, so that became my goal.” She became a lawyer, and then a prosecutor, and then district attorney. She served two terms as governor of New Mexico from 2011 to 2018. When you talk to her about it, it is clear she enjoyed every minute.