馃攳
Categorical grants, mandates, and the Commerce Clause | US government and civics | Khan Academy - YouTube
Channel: Khan Academy
[0]
in a previous video we've introduced
[2]
ourselves to the idea of federalism in
[5]
the united states at a high level you
[8]
could view it as a contract between a
[10]
national government and the states of
[12]
which it is made but you could also view
[15]
it as a layered form of government where
[17]
you have your local government and then
[19]
layered on top of that your state
[21]
government and then layered on top of
[22]
that your national government often
[24]
referred to as the federal government
[26]
and we looked at the example of a
[27]
layered cake but have said that over the
[29]
course of american history the
[31]
layers have gotten more and more mixed
[33]
more like a marbled cake
[35]
and it's been mixed more in the favor of
[38]
the national or the federal government
[41]
even though certain powers were
[44]
historically more associated with the
[46]
states as we will see there are several
[49]
levers that the federal government has
[50]
used in order to extend its power into
[54]
the domain of what used to be associated
[56]
with primarily the states so one is the
[59]
notion of categorical grants so these
[63]
are grants for a specific purpose where
[66]
the federal government says hey states
[68]
we're going to give you some money but
[70]
you've got to use this money in exactly
[72]
the way that we're telling you now to be
[74]
clear not all grants are categorical
[77]
grants you have things like block grants
[80]
where the federal government can give a
[82]
grant to a state and say hey use this to
[84]
generally improve the safety of your
[86]
citizens that would still give a lot of
[88]
leeway to states but in categorical
[90]
grants it's very specific in terms of
[93]
how the states are to use that money
[96]
even if historically it was something
[97]
where the states had the powers so an
[100]
example of this would be the federal
[102]
program the special supplemental
[104]
nutrition assistance program for women
[106]
infants and children or wic and to get a
[110]
idea of how prescriptive it is here is
[113]
an outline of the program on the usda
[115]
website a federal government agency
[118]
and if we go down here you can even see
[121]
things like income requirements and
[123]
there'll be income eligibility
[125]
guidelines these are set by the federal
[127]
government not by the states
[130]
along those lines you also have mandates
[135]
so a mandate is the federal government
[138]
tying funding to one thing
[140]
based on state compliance with another
[143]
thing
[144]
for example the national minimum
[146]
drinking age act which was passed in
[148]
1984
[149]
ties federal highway funds to states
[153]
raising their minimum drinking age to
[156]
21.
[157]
and i had direct experience with this
[159]
act when i was growing up in louisiana
[162]
louisiana decided not to comply by the
[164]
national minimum drinking age act so the
[167]
drinking age was 18 but because they
[169]
didn't comply they weren't getting as
[170]
much federal funding for highways and
[172]
the highways weren't as good as in other
[174]
states so even though the drinking age
[176]
is something that might be considered a
[178]
state power the federal government was
[181]
able to exercise a lot of influence on
[183]
most states by tying what the federal
[185]
government wanted to highway funds
[189]
now outside of these examples of the
[191]
federal government tying state funds to
[195]
the states doing what the federal
[197]
government wants the federal government
[199]
has also made use of the u.s
[201]
constitution in order to broaden its
[203]
powers in particular the commerce clause
[207]
article 1 section 8 you might remember
[209]
that's the part where they say the
[211]
congress shall have power and then they
[214]
list a bunch of powers but one of them
[216]
the commerce clause is to regulate
[218]
commerce with foreign nations and among
[221]
the several states and with the indian
[223]
tribes and the key part of the commerce
[226]
clause is among the several states over
[229]
the course of american history this
[231]
ability to regulate interstate commerce
[234]
commerce between states the federal
[236]
government has used that to justify
[239]
regulations and laws that focus on
[242]
issues that may at first be perceived as
[245]
a state power
[246]
but use the argument that it affects
[249]
interstate commerce in order to regulate
[251]
it and as you can imagine when you have
[253]
free-flowing commerce between states you
[256]
have the same currency you don't have
[257]
terrorists between states many things
[260]
that you would traditionally view as the
[262]
power of the state one could argue would
[265]
have some influence on interstate
[268]
commerce
[269]
one notable example of this would be
[271]
federal drug laws where a state could
[275]
decide to say legalize marijuana but the
[278]
federal government can make it pretty
[280]
difficult by regulating how is that
[282]
marijuana transported or where does the
[285]
cash for that marijuana get deposited
[287]
does it get deposited in a bank that has
[290]
associations with the federal reserve
[292]
that needs to transfer that money across
[294]
state lines so the interstate commerce
[296]
clause has more influence on state
[299]
affairs than you might initially think
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage