Crossing Thresholds: Federalism in the 1960s

Journal of Policy History

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 64-80

  Derthick, Martha ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84902061963     PISSN: 08980306     EISSN: 15284190     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0898030600005030     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. On the compound character of the American federal system, see any edition of The Federalist, No. 39.
2. Cf. Martin Diamond, “What the Framers Meant by Federalism,” in Robert A. Goldwin, ed., A Nation of States: Essays on the American Federal System (Chicago, 1963).
3. Henry M. Hart Jr., “The Relations Between State and Federal Law,” in Arthur W. Macmahon, ed., Federalism Mature and Emergent (Garden City, N.Y., 1955), 194.
4. Federalism Mature and Emergent.
5. On the effects of grant-in-aid conditions in the public assistance program, see Martha Derthick, The Influence of Federal Grants: Public Assistance in Massachusetts (Cambridge, Mass., 1970).
6. 365 U.S. 167.
7. Paul M. Bator, “Some Thoughts on Applied Federalism,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 6 (1982): 51–58
8. “Section 1983 and Federalism,” Harvard Law Review 90 (1977): 1133
9. Peter W. Low and John Calvin Jeffries Jr., Civil Rights Actions: Section 1983 and Related Statutes (Westbury, N.Y., 1988), 16.
10. Paul M. Bator et al., Hart and Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System, 3d ed. (Westbury, N.Y., 1988), 1221–1277
11. Theodore Eisenberg, Civil Rights Legislation: Cases and Materials, 2d ed. (Charlottesville, Va., 1987), 55–136.
12. The education examples are from H. C. Hudgins Jr. and Richard S. Vacca, Law and Education: Contemporary Issues and Court Decisions (Charlottesville, Va., 1979).
13. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
14. My account of reapportionment is condensed from a secondary source, Gordon E. Baker, The Reapportionment Revolution: Representation, Political Power, and the Supreme Court (New York, 1966).
15. The Lucas case is at 377 U.S. 713; the quotation is at 736.
16. Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (New York, 1990), 85–86. Use of the guarantee clause, according to Bork, “would have resulted in an order that a majority of the state's voters be permitted to reapportion their legislature, whether by referendum, convention, or some other mechanism.” The court need not have told a state's voters what system of representation they were required to “choose.”
17. Two leading sources are: Daniel P. Moynihan, Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding: Community Action in the War on Poverty (New York, 1969)
18. Peter Marris and Martin Rein, Dilemmas of Social Reform: Poverty and Community Action in the United States (Chicago, 1973).
19. Gary Orfield, The Reconstruction of Southern Education: The Schools and the 1964 Civil Rights Act (New York, 1969), 46. This is much the best source on the origins and impact of Title VI.
20. I have drawn on the entry “Vote, Right to,” by Abigail M. Themstrom in Kermit L. Hall and others, The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (New York, 1992), 899–902.
21. Bernard Grofman and Chandler Davidson, eds., Controversies in Minority Voting: The Voting Rights Act in Perspective (Washington, D.C., 1992), 53n, 86–87.
22. This summary is taken, sometimes near to verbatim, from Fred P. Graham, The Due Process Revolution: The Warren Court's Impact on Criminal Law (New York, 1970), chaps. 1 and 13.
23. On the rise and fall of national aid to the police, see Thomas E. Cronin, Tania Z. Cronin, and Michael E. Milkakovich, U.S. v. Crime in the Streets (Bloomington, 1981).
24. R. Shep Melnick, Between the Lines: Interpreting Welfare Rights (Washington, D.C., 1994), 83–84.
25. Orfield, The Reconstruction of Southern Education, 358–360.
26. Mr. Justice Jackson: Four Lectures in His Honor by Charles S. Desmond, Paul A. Freund, Potter Stewart, and Lord Shawcross (New York, 1969), 60. Harlan introduced Stewart's lecture.
27. Archibald Cox, The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government (New York, 1976), 77.
28. U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Regulatory Federalism: Policy, Process, Impact, and Reform (Washington, D.C., 1984), 1.
29. The term seems to have been given currency, if not actually introduced, by New York Mayor Edward I. Koch's article, “The Mandate Millstone,” which appeared in The Public Interest (Fall 1980): 42–57.
30. 312 U.S. 100.
31. “The Passing of Dual Federalism,” in Alpheus T. Mason and Gerald Garvey, eds., American Constitutional History: Essays by Edward S. Corwin (New York, 1964), 145–164.
32. The other postulates comprising dual federalism were: the national government is one of enumerated powers only; the purposes that it may constitutionally promote are few; and the relation of the two centers of power with each other is one of tension rather than collaboration. Corwin's article originally appeared in the Virginia Law Review 36 (February 1950).
33. On the relation between modernization and centralization, see Samuel H. Beer, “The Modernization of American Federalism,” Publius 3 (Fall 1973): 49–95.