Supreme Court, Federalism, and Public Administrators

INTRODUCTION

The American system of government is founded on the principle of federalism, which allocates powers between the national government and the states. This division of power is reflected in the structure of the US government, with the national government exercising authority over matters of national importance and the states retaining authority over matters of local concern. The Supreme Court plays an important role in police this division of power, as it has the power to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws that conflict with it. In recent years, the Supreme Court has taken an increasingly active role in public administration, striking down laws that it deemed to be an excessive intrusion by the national government into state affairs. This has led to a growing tension between the Supreme Court and public administrators, who often see the Court's decisions as hampering their ability to carry out their duties. However, it is important to remember that the Supreme Court is only one part of the federal government, and that there are checks and balances in place that allow for debate and dialogue between the different branches of government. Ultimately, it is up to the American people to decide how much power they want their government to have. This paper will examine recent Supreme Court cases affecting federalism and public administration, discuss how such decisions affected role of public administrators in U.S. federalist system and what effect these recent decisions had on federal, state, and local government. Finally, it will provide a biblical viewpoint for understanding these issues.

RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES AFFECTING FEDERALISM

There have been a number of recent Supreme Court cases that affect federalism. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), the Court upheld the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate as a tax, but struck down the Medicaid expansion as unconstitutional. This ruling limited the power of the federal government to coerce states into participating in federal programs. In Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006), the Court held that public employees are not protected by the First Amendment when they make statements pursuant to their official duties. This ruling limits the ability of state and local governments to regulate speech by their employees. Finally, in Cooper v. Harris (2017), the Court held that North Carolina's congressional districting plan was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. This ruling affirmed the principle that states must draw electoral districts in a manner that does not discriminate against racial minorities. These cases have important implications for federalism and will continue to shape the relationship between the federal government and the states for years to come.

Federalism is a constitutional arrangement in which power is divided between a national government and smaller divisions of government, such as states or provinces. In the United States, federalism is often understood as a system of checks and balances, in which the national government and the states share power (Rose & Goelzhauser, 2018). This understanding of federalism was put to the test in the 2012 case of NFIB v. Sebelius, in which the Supreme Court considered whether the Affordable Care Act was constitutional. The Court ultimately ruled that the individual mandate - a key provision of the ACA - was constitutional, but that other parts were not. As Thapa et al. (2019) explain, federalism through the health care system is one of the many ways in which power and the divisions of government can compete.

In recent years, federalism has also been at the center of cases involving voting rights and redistricting. In Gill v. Whitford, the Court considered whether Wisconsin's redistricting plan violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Court ruled that the map was unconstitutional, holding that "partisan gerrymanders can be projector onto future electoral maps." Likewise, in Cooper v. Harris, the Court ruled that North Carolina's congressional districting plan was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. These cases illustrate that federalism remains a vital and contested issue in American politics (Lamb & Neiheisel, 2021).

THAT AFFECT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Public administration is a field that is always evolving, in large part due to the decisions made by the Supreme Court. In the last few years, there have been a number of cases that have had a significant impact on public administrators. One of the most notable cases is National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, which struck down a key component of the Affordable Care Act. This case not only had major implications for healthcare policy, but also for the way that public administrators collect and use data (Blakeman & Banks, 2018).

Another important case is Gill v. Whitford, which invalidated Wisconsin's districting map on the grounds that it was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. This case could have major implications for the way that public administrators draw districts in...…means that local government employees can be disciplined or terminated if they speak out against their employer. In sum, Supreme Court decisions can have far-reaching effects on all levels of government.

BIBLICAL VIEWPOINT

As a system of government, federalism has its roots in the Bible. In the Old Testament, we see the nation of Israel organized into a series of tribes, each with its own leader. This structure helped to provide for the common defense and promote cooperation among the various tribes. Thus in Ecclesiastes 5:8, it is written, If you see in a province the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and righteousness, do not be amazed at the matter, for the high official is watched by a higher, and there are yet higher ones over them. In other words, no power is alone on earth, and there is a hierarchical system that God has given to power. Yet at the same time there is local power, as seen in Exodus 18:26: And they judged the people at all times. Any hard case they brought to Moses, but any small matter they decided themselves. Likewise, it is evident in the New Testament that we see the early Christians organizing themselves into a network of churches, each with its own governing body. This system helped to ensure that the teachings of Jesus were preserved and spread throughout the world.

Today, federalism is still used as a way to promote cooperation among different levels of government. By dividing power between the national government and state governments, federalism allows for a more efficient and effective allocation of resources. Additionally, federalism provides a check on the powers of each level of government, preventing any one level from becoming too powerful. As we can see, federalism is a system of government that has been used throughout history to promote cooperation and prevent tyranny.

CONCLUSION

Supreme Court decisions have had a profound effect on federal, state, and local government. Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between the federal government and the states. The Supreme Court has played a major role in shaping federalism by interpreting the Constitution and enforcing its limits on the powers of the federal government. This has been the case throughout history. In recent years it is no different, as the cases discussed in this paper have shown. Competition in government has big effects…