Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
How had federalism fared under Barack Obama? - Coggle Diagram
How had federalism fared under Barack Obama?
The Economic Crisis
Expanded the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)- 2009
Congress had tried twice to expand
Department of Health matches what states designate in funds for poor families
Expanded access to 4.1 million children in 2009
But still gave states control over who qualified
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
$787 billion stimulus for:
Infrastructure
Education
Health
Energy
Welfare
$245 billion available from this in grants to state and local governments
increased funding for over 100 different grant programs
Obamacare
Before Obamacare:
Medicare
Provides healthcare for those aged 65+
14.3% (2010)- 44.3 million people
Medicaid
Provides healh coverage for those on very low incomes
15.9% (2010)- 48.6 million people
Private
Bought by an individual or (more often) paid for by their job
64% (2010)- 195.9 million people
Uninsured
Cannot afford insurance, but do not qualify for welfare
16.3% (2010)- 49.9 million people
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010)
Expanded qualifications for Medicaid to include those 33% above the poverty line
Tax credits given to those 300% above the poverty line to help them buy insurance
Federal govt. would initially pay 100%
By 2020, States would pay 10%
However, if states failed to meet this payment threshold, they would lose ALL Medicaid funding, not simply the expanded measures
Medical bills were the number one form of bankruptcy
Patients with pre-existing medical conditions struggled to get insurance
The Law now forced Insurance companies to cover those even with serious pre-existing conditions
Everyone had to get medical insurance, or pay a fine
The "Individual Mandate"
National Federation of Independent Businesses vs Sebelius (2012
By threatening to withhold all funding, the Obama govt. was effectively forcing state compliance
27 states have expanded Medicaid
4 states are considering it
20 states have refused to expand
In these states the "coverage gap" still exists
Many people are too poor to afford insurance
But too rich to access Medicaid
The "Individual Mandate" Clause was unconstitutional in a certain sense
The Federal Govt. cannot force you to buy medical insurance, broccolis, or anything else
However, the court allowed it.
Preemption
The Constitution made itself and any compliant federal laws supreme over conflicting state laws
Arizona vs United States (2012)
Arizona law Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighbourhoods Act (2010)
Required Law Enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone they had legally stopped with "reasonable suspicion"
Required all non-citizens to register with the federal government and carry registration papers at all times
Critics called it the "papers please" law and worried that it would encourage racial profiling
The Court ruled 5-3 that the Federal Govt. had the power to determine immigration rights, and that in the conflict, the government won.
However, the "papers please" section was upheld
Voting rights
Shelby County vs Holder (2013)
Upheld Congress' power to require states to get federal approval when changing election rules
However, the formula for deciding which states needed permission was unconstitutional, as the data was over 40 years old.
The system challenged the states' claim to "equal sovereignty"
Within 24 hours, Texas and Mississippi introduced new ID laws that had the potential to disproportionately affect poor and minority voters
Horizontal federalism
The relationship between the 50 states, rather than between the states and the federal govt.
Congress passed the Defence of Marriage Act (1996)
Allowed states to refuse to accept same-sex marriages that took place in other states.
Adar vs Smith (2013) exposed the problems that emerged as a result of this conflict.
A couple in New York wanted to change the birth certificate details of their adopted son (born in Lousiana)
However, the Lousiana govt. did not accept their marriage as legitimate, and refused to change the details.
The decisions has been upheld by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (who rejected the case)
Same-sex couples would not be considered married under federal law, so would not receive benefits.
Ruled unconstitutional in the case Windsor vs United States (2013)
States as "laboratories of democracy"
Colorado and Washington have legalised marijuana
However, it remains illegal under federal law
Therefore, state officials will not arrest you for possession.
But federal workers will.
Gonzales vs Raich (2005)
The Supreme Court ruled that the federal law takes priority, even if the drug never crosses, or is intended to cross state lines.