Texas Government System
Introduction
Federalism refers to the mixed and or compound mode of governance that combines the central or federal government with its regional governance or the provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other sub-units in the single government unit (Riker, 29). Federalism unites different separate states as well as other policies within a given overarching political state as a means towards maintaining integrity. Federal systems vary from one state to the other with some dual, picket-fence, marble cake and new or competitive federalism. The constitution is the ultimate guide for the establishment of a federal relationship.
Dual federalism is also referred to as layer-cake federalism or divided sovereignty established between 1790- 1930. The system includes two levels of governments that operate in different or separated roles. The government powers are split between two levels; the federal and state level of government to establish and preserve the balance between the two levels of government (Harasimchuk, 1481). Dual federalism provides power for both the federal and state government offering them the power over individuals, however, the power in the provision is limited so that there is separate and distinct authority so that neither system of government is subordinate, nor liable to deprivation of authority.
Picket-fence federalism is a phrase based on a metaphor coined by Terry Sanford to explain the intergovernmental relationships. In such a federal system specialist can develop bonds between them in a process that transcend the governmental jurisdiction. The power within such a government system assumes a vertical distribution of power within the federal government that is top in the hierarchy, followed by the state and finally, the localities in the bottom of the chain. In the picket-fence federal system, the environment allows specialists such as highway engineers share information and similar perspectives since they have well-established and working contact with the state as well as federal engineers as compared to their local professionals. Picket-fence is also referred to as the creative federalism that runs approximately between 1960-1980 (Weissert, p967). The federal system determines the needs of the states and allocates the necessary resources. The power within the system is shifted to the federal government as shown in Johnson administration and the systems of social as well as welfare reforms that took place in the 1960s. The reforms were focused on the federal states whereby there was a contingent developed towards the adoption of several federally determined objectives.
Marble Cake Federalism refers to a state of the federal government that divides its powers equally between the systems of governance to resolve multiple common problems in a collective approach. This system of federalism is also referred to as the co-operative federalism, a very popular system of federalism during the great depression, the second world war and the cold war running from around 1930 to the 1960s. The marble cake federalism is effective in the state of governance that requires two systems of government working together towards governing the state. The two systems of government share multiple powers to the extent that the line separating the two systems gets burred over and are almost non-existence (Weissert, p974). The government, as well as the founding constitution, allows for mixing of power, resources as well as programs between the states of government; the national, state and federal government. In the marble-cake setup, federalism allows for the mixing of power as well as intermingling between different levels of government during the development and implementation of policies or programs within the state so that it is referred to as co-operative federalism.
Competitive or New federalism was developed between 1980-2001 as a means to address the loss of power during the implementation of creative or picket fence federalism. The new federal system was concerned with the reassertion of powers bringing them back to the state government as well as the local governments (Riker, 72). The goal of competitive federalism was to develop a new balance between the state and local government after the creative federalism period. The principle drive for the shift to new federalism was the removal of the conditionality attached to the federally provided block grants as a way to enable the states to have freedom over their grants to prioritize on their resources choosing on what to spend on with urgency compared to other needs (Gardner, p1725). Competitive federalism fostered desirable competition between the government and the jurisdictions put across in the federal systems. Such intergovernmental and interjurisdictional competition creates balance and develops a better self-sustaining federal system reducing chances of disintegration in the centralized system.
Federalism in Texas
Federalism in most instances is used to denote a government that has a division of power into two systems, the regional and central political systems. In the U.S for instance, separates the two systems of power, the state and the federal system often referred to as the national government. Each unit is allocated self-governing authority as discussed in the marble cake federal system. According to the analysis of the federalism systems, Texas government best falls under picket-fence federalism. Texas governance system, to begin with, it has a political culture that is traditionalistic and equally individualist (Gardner, 1725). Individualism in the Texas system is evident in the economic as well as social conservatism approach, the strong level of support existing between the individualistic and personal politics. Political parties lack trust reducing them to insignificant levels so that the political parties fail to meet their roles. The traditionalistic approach is evident in the Texas social order that is highly conserved with the minority and poor facing discrimination and is even denied the right to vote.
Texas political system is constituting of several regional governments so that the regional governments are highly governed and influenced by the decisions made by the state, local as well as the national government. The Texas constitution, as well as the law, limits the powers of the local government as compared to the state government (Weissert, 977). However, the local or regional government is the point of direct contact with multiple occupants as well as the government. As a result, voter indifference prevails at this level of governance, a challenge that should have been addressed throughout the federal evolution process. Regional governance forms a basic and very important part in the lives of Texans.
Texas state is more consistent with the creative or picket-fence system of federalism since the national government in this set up is allocated more powers as compared to the state government. The federal government, on the other hand, is allocated unswerving authority to oversee the statewide curriculum. The federal and state government additionally, are continually fighting towards the establishment of a system that eliminates education challenges, inequality, abortion, disagreements on personal expression among other challenges (Riker, p115). Texas legislation, on the other hand, is highly manipulated by the federal government in challenges. The maintenance of a traditionalistic and individualistic culture by the Texans elite politician has kept in touch with the picket fence federalism culture.
Work Cited
Gardner, James A. “State Courts as Agents of Federalism: Power and Interpretation in State Constitutional Law.” William & Mary Law Review 44 (2002): 1725.
Herasimchuk, Cathleen C. “New Federalism: Judicial Legislation by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.” Texas Law Review 68 (1989):1481.
Riker, W. H. The development of American federalism. 2012. Springer Science & Business Media.
Weissert, C. S. “Beyond marble cakes and picket fences: What US federalism scholars can learn from comparative work.” The Journal of Politics, 2011 73(4), 965-979.