News. Debate. Community. Levers for a better democracy.
MOST READ
Get some leverage.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
Balance of Power
Patrick Foto/Getty Images
Congress is losing ground on the budget; it's time it claws that power back
Jun 30 2020
Hedtler-Gaudette is a policy analyst at the Project On Government Oversight, a nonpartisan group that investigates misconduct and conflicts of interest by federal officials. Dayton is a policy advocate at Protect Democracy, a nonprofit working "to prevent our democracy from declining into a more authoritarian form of government."
<p>Back in April, President Trump said he would halt federal funding of the World Health Organization, on the grounds it was too slow to sound the alarm about the global spread of the coronavirus. The next month, he announced the United States was withdrawing from the WHO altogether. </p><p>Like so many of the president's norm-shattering proclamations, that raised the question: Can he do those things?</p><p>The answer, as it happens, is complicated — and it shines a bright light on the vulnerabilities in the congressional appropriations process and the wobbly balance of legislative and executive power. As Congress begins to exercise the power of the purse again, by starting this month to produce spending measures for the coming year, it would do well to learn from the troubling weaknesses the WHO issue raises.</p><p>Congress provided the president with discretion when it appropriated this year's funding for "international organizations," as has been typical. It neglected to specify an amount for the WHO, created after World War II to combat diseases of global import, or even mention the organization by name. </p><p>Instead, the law instructed the administration "to meet annual obligations of membership in international multilateral organizations, pursuant to treaties ... conventions, or specific acts of Congress," and provided a bucket of funds for doing so. Absent more specificity, the administration may be technically entitled to redirect funds originally destined for the WHO.</p><p>After more than seven decades as a dues-paying member, the United States is changing course by executive decree, but it's far from clear Congress intended to grant the executive such sweeping authority.</p><p>Lawmakers commonly appropriate without including line-item details, with the understanding that policymaking benefits from some reasonable flexibility. Undergirding this practice is trust. In exchange for granting some discretion, Congress expects the presidents will not run loose and suspend the flow of money clearly meant for a program or organization — or pursue policies clearly at odds with the nation's commitments as decided upon by Congress.</p><p>Whether the president has the technical authority misses the bigger point: The administration's actions risk further eroding trust between the two branches. The president is chipping away at the presumption of good faith. And, just as troubling, lawmakers are steadily losing control over their most critical constitutional prerogative.</p><p>In this respect, the WHO issue is one of many. Last year, for example, the White House's Office of Management and Budget informed federal agencies they need not reply to inquiries from Congress' Government Accountability Office about potential violations of appropriations law.</p><p>No statute specifically mandates agency cooperation with the GAO in this regard; the law only obligates agencies to report violations themselves. But traditionally, cooperation prevails. Alarmed, the GAO wrote to tell Congress the novel OMB guidance was an abrupt departure from long-standing norms.</p><p>As the president sidelines bedrock congressional authority, it falls on Congress to reassert its power to spend money. Otherwise, Congress' power and interbranch trust will continue to erode.</p><p>First, Congress should start with requiring spending transparency within the executive branch. While Trump announced termination of WHO funding, Capitol Hill has little visibility into whether and when funds would actually be withheld or redirected. </p><p>Congress should require publicly available and regular apportionment reports, and mandate compliance with requests for information from oversight bodies like the GAO. Congress should have little tolerance for being left in the dark when exercising its most basic constitutional duties.</p><p>Second, it's time to add some teeth to its lawmaking by authorizing disciplinary measures for officials who violate appropriations law. The Congressional Power of the Purse Act, a bill proposed this spring by the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Democrat John Yarmouth of Kentucky, would make progress on both fronts.</p><p>Perhaps most importantly, members of Congress should speak up in defense of their branch of government — and forcefully. </p><p>This pushback must include public statements but also assertive action to claw back the legislative branch's rightful position in our system of separated and balanced powers. Trump's letter to the WHO suggests the power of the purse lay squarely with the executive — Congress, meanwhile, entirely absent from the picture. </p><p>A president's usurpation of congressional authority is not novel, to be sure; every one of them has sought to accrete more spending power for himself. Still, recent episodes risk further muddying the constitutional waters, communicating to the public (and the world) that our government's spending authority resides with the executive. The Framers certainly disagreed, unequivocally vesting Congress with the sole constitutional power of the purse.</p><p>Reasonable people can disagree on policy, such as whether the United States should be the 194th member of WHO or keep current on its dues to belong. That's not the issue. This is about the president's unilateral decision and Congress' power to determine government spending priorities.</p><p>While the issue right now may be Trump's decision to leave the WHO, next year may bring a new administration. Congress should want to reassert its power of the purse regardless of who is in the White House. Congressional Democrats have excoriated this administration for assuming Congress' spending authority; should Joe Biden move into the Oval Office, we can expect congressional Republicans would rightfully do the same.</p><p>Congress' real struggle, then, is less about any one president and more over its own role as envisaged by the Constitution. The latter is certainly more enduring and more important, so Congress should stand up now and reclaim its authority.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Congress needs to reassert its authority - The Fulcrum ›
- President Trump, Congress and broken standards of democracy ... ›
- Will Congress Fight for Its Right to Govern? - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images
President Trump "has played politics with religion in a way that damages America's democratic norms and practices," writes Amherst College professor Austin Sarat.
How Trump is using religion to undermine our democracy
Jun 19 2020
Sarat is a professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
<p>The country has been consumed with a pandemic, an economic collapse and an uprising in the name of racial justice. But instead of rising to the challenge of addressing these colossal problems, President Trump has <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/02/coronavirus-religious-freedom-worship-restrictions-social-distancing-column/5307600002/" target="_blank">helped make</a> freedom of religion a battlefront in the fight to stop the spread of Covid-19 and in the response to the killing of George Floyd.</p>
<p>He has played politics with religion in a way that damages America's democratic norms and practices.</p><p>In March, Trump <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/24/trump-wants-to-restart-economy-by-mid-april-146398?fbclid=IwAR1d8He_SBouCqDFZ6ieD-OChs14Oj1Om2zuXVv_JvsOSXkc-CkzkqC9Rrs" target="_blank">called for the reopening</a> of the national economy and places of worship by Easter, citing the symbolic significance of the Christian holiday.</p>
<p>In April, he <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-tells-religious-leaders-we-re-going-beat-plague-n1179586" target="_blank">met with conservative religious leaders</a> and praised evangelical minister Franklin Graham for <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/6/franklin-graham-coronavirus-man-has-turned-his-bac/" target="_blank">declaring the coronavirus</a> "is a result of a fallen world, a world that has turned its back on God."</p>
<p>In May, the president highlighted the political dimension of his religious messaging when <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-pushes-cdc-reopening-churches-guidance-important-nations/story?id=70832055" target="_blank">he said</a> churches "are not being treated with respect by a lot of the Democrat governors." Playing to the fault lines of America's culture wars, he also <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/22/trump-churches-essential-coronavirus-274763" target="_blank">criticized officials</a> who have "deemed liquor stores and abortion clinics as essential, but have left out churches and other houses of worship." </p>
<p>And then on June 1, after tear gas and brute force moved peaceful protesters out of his way, the president walked from the White House to St. John's Church so he could be photographed awkwardly holding a Bible. That provoked a firestorm of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/02/trumps-use-bible-was-obscene-he-should-try-reading-words-inside-it/" target="_blank">criticism</a>, but little of it focused on the ramifications for American democracy of a president's political use of religion during a national crisis. </p>
<p>Wariness about that kind of mixing of religion and politics has been a critical component of America's democratic experiment right from the start. </p>
<p>It is <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment" target="_blank">enshrined</a> in the First Amendment's prohibition of the "establishment of religion" and its guarantee of religious liberty, and in the clause of the Constitution specifying that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust." </p>
<p>It also marked George Washington's presidency. His speeches <a href="https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-george-washington-on-religion-politics-02032017-story.html" target="_blank">contained</a> many references to an "Almighty Being," or "the Benign Parent of the human race." Yet, believing it to be a danger to democracy, Washington opposed merging religion and public life. </p>
<p>Since then, American presidents have been more or less open about <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/20/almost-all-presidents-have-been-christians/" target="_blank">their religious beliefs</a> — and their commitment to separating religion and politics. </p>
<p>Theodore Roosevelt offered one of the most explicit examples in 1908. "To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church," he <a href="https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1908/11/09/p/1" target="_blank">told supporters</a> who wanted to make a campaign issue of his opponent's religion, "is an outrage against the liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life."</p>
<p>Confronting such bigotry a half century later, John F. Kennedy, campaigning to be the first Roman Catholic president, <a href="https://www.wbur.org/news/2017/05/25/kennedy-catholicism-presidential-campaign" target="_blank">assured voters</a> that "I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me."</p>
<p>Amid such cautions, religious leaders for much of the 20th century <a href="https://www.baylorpress.com/9781602589650/rhetoric-religion-and-the-civil-rights-movement-1954-1965/" target="_blank">played key roles</a> in various movements seeking to build a more equal and inclusive society — just as they had a century earlier in the struggle against slavery. </p>
<p>Yet today the politicization of religious differences is much greater, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-black-activism-lost-its-religion/2015/09/18/2f56fc00-5d6b-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html" target="_blank">complicating</a> faith communities' efforts to avoid partisan entanglements. Polarization and tribalism <a href="https://theconversation.com/extreme-political-polarization-weakens-democracy-can-the-us-avoid-that-fate-105540" target="_blank">now dominate</a> American politics and have taken on a religious flavor.</p>
<p>A 2016 survey uncovered <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/" target="_blank">stark partisan differences</a> among members of different religious groups. It found that the Democratic Party <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/religion-gap-republican-democratic-voters-polling/index.html" target="_blank">attracts voters</a> from various spiritual backgrounds, while the Republican Party is an increasingly theological party, dominated by white evangelicals. </p>
<p>And not only do adherents of different religions align themselves with different parties these days; they treat one another as enemies who threaten their faith.</p>
<p>Many Democrats see what they call <a href="https://morningconsult.com/2019/04/02/roughly-half-the-electorate-views-christian-nationalism-as-a-threat/" target="_blank">Christian "nationalism"</a> as antithetical to "the vital interests of the country." In turn, some Christian leaders <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrats-are-treating-people-of-faith-like-criminals" target="_blank">describe</a><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrats-are-treating-people-of-faith-like-criminals" target="_blank"> contemporary Democratic leaders</a> as the "greatest threat to the free exercise of religion in American history" because they are "attacking the foundation of America's goodness."</p>
<p>The institutions of democracy are <a href="http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/class%20readings/weber/politicsasavocation.pdf" target="_blank">endangered</a> by such intense religious entanglements and deep religious chasms, because they are ill-equipped to resolve conflicts over life's ultimate questions. Moreover, respect for procedure and the spirit of compromise that democracy requires cannot thrive when each side in a political debate sees the other as a danger to their deepest values.</p>
<p>This is the context in which the president's stoking of religious animosities has occurred. It helps explain why Trump's photo op two weeks ago was so significant. </p>
<p>The event's iconography intensified polarization and endangered democracy. And it suggested an alarming presidential point of view: People protesting police brutality and systemic racism, in the aftermath of Floyd's death under the knee of a Minneapolis officer, were like the Democratic governors Trump has reviled for refusing to open churches during the pandemic. They would defile religion if not contained — despite the fact that some of the people forcibly removed from the area were parishioners of the very church where the president posed. </p>
<p>By politicizing religion throughout this period of pandemic and protest, Trump is <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-use-of-religion-follows-playbook-of-authoritarian-leaning-leaders-the-world-over-140050" target="_blank">following the lead</a> of authoritarian leaders in other nations by using "religion to reinforce his image as a strongman defending a particular brand of tradition against infidels."</p>
<p>James Madison <a href="https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/the-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-10/" target="_blank">alerted</a> Americans to the threat that mixing religion and politics would pose for their fledgling democracy. "A zeal for different opinions concerning religion," he wrote in 1787, "divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good." </p>
<p>The warning rings true today: To use religion to divide Americans is to fail to "cooperate for their common good." If Trump genuinely wishes to build on religious precepts in a way that does not damage democracy, he would do well to heed the commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Christian groups unite to push Golden Rule during the coming ... ›
- President Trump, Congress and broken standards of democracy ... ›
- How Trump is turning the presidency into a dictatorship - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
A demonstrator stands in front of members of the National Guard while observing a peaceful protest against police brutality and racism on June 6.
Good-government groups protest military force against protesters
Jun 09 2020
Some good-government groups have made their first tangible move to align their cause with protesters nationwide — pressing for 10,000 allies to decry "the unthinkable" use of the military to quell demonstrations.
President Trump has ordered National Guard troops to begin withdrawing from the nation's capital, responding to the widespread condemnation of his use of force to drive protesters away from the White House and his threatening to have troops put down demonstrations in other cities. Some of the rebukes came from current and former military leaders.
But the organizers of the petition drive say it is important to galvanize sentiment against any return of the armed forces to the streets — which they say would trample democracy not only by violating protesters' free speech rights but also by shredding the balance of power.
<p>"Our cities are not a 'battlespace' to be dominated by our military and our citizens' constitutional rights cannot be infringed upon for a photo op," says <a href="https://www.rdi.org/secretary-esper-petition/" target="_blank">the petition</a>, which calls on Defense Secretary Mark Esper and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Mark Milley, to refuse any order "to turn the U.S. military against American citizens."</p><p>The groups started circulating their document online over the weekend, gathering 2,000 signatures as a week of protests against racial injustice and excessive policing spread across the country and were almost completely peaceful. </p><p>The groups backing the effort are the Renew Democracy Initiative, Protect Democracy, the Niskanen Center, Freedom House, Third Way, <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/stand-up-republic" target="_self">Stand Up Republic</a> and the Lubetzky Family Foundation.</p><p>This week, the coalition will begin its digital media campaign to share the petition more widely and rally public support around this issue. The tentative goal is at least 10,000 signatures.</p><p>"The use of military might to quell peaceful protests is a tool of dictatorships like Russia or China that rule by terror and force," said RDI Chairman Garry Kasparov, the former world chess champion, adding that his organization will do "whatever it can to ensure that America sticks to rule of law."</p><p>Most notably, the troops had used chemical irritants and flash-bang grenades to clear peaceful protesters outside the White House for a photo opportunity by the president. National Guard helicopters flew low over demonstrators to scatter them and active-duty troops were summoned to just outside the capital.</p><p>On Sunday the president said the National Guard soldiers would withdraw "now that everything is under perfect control." But, he added on Twitter, "They will be going home, but can quickly return, if needed."</p>
Claim: President Trump has the rights to invoke the Insurrection Act. Fact check: True
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM4MTI4OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0OTI1Njg4N30.40U_0WXLIOFOnzZ9ml5lZIz1yuSy1V_ICh7h36GnN60/img.jpg?width=980" id="eccd2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d42e8251ef834f7db85d60bf298cafce" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Bing Xiao, Medill School<blockquote>"I am mobilizing all federal and local resources, civilian and military, to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans."<br/>"If a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them."<br/></blockquote><p>White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said at a briefing June 1 that President Trump has the prerogative to invoke the Insurrection Act to resolve violent protests that broke out in support of George Floyd across the nation.</p><p>According to the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/6/466" target="_blank">definition</a> from the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School, the Insurrection Actt, adopted in 1807, authorizes the president, at the request of a state government, to federalize the National Guard and to use the remainder of the Armed Forces to suppress an insurrection against that state's government. It further allows for the president to do the same in a state without the explicit consent of a state's government if it becomes impracticable to enforce federal laws through ordinary proceedings or if states are unable to safeguard its inhabitants' civil rights. However, the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the government from using military forces to act as a police force within U.S. borders.</p><p>Governors prefer relying on National Guardsmen to de-escalate the tensions.</p><p>On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said he does not support invoking the Insurrection Act and using active-duty military forces to deal with the unrest in U.S. cities — a statement that puts him at odds with his boss.<br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- Democracy reform groups tie their cause to racial protests - The ... ›
- Youth protesting racism are the civic educators we need - The Fulcrum ›
- Racism is the greatest threat to democracy today - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
Yellow Dog Productions/Getty Images
Who's in charge of lifting lockdowns?
Jun 02 2020
Swindell, an associate professor of public affairs at Arizona State University, studies how different levels of government interact and work together.
<p>
In a nation with
<a href="https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html" target="_blank">more than 90,000 governments</a>, responses to the coronavirus pandemic have highlighted the challenges posed by our system of federalism, where significant power rests with states and local governments.
</p><p>
Three weeks ago Wisconsin's
<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/politics/wisconsin-supreme-court-strikes-down-stay-at-home-order/index.html" target="_blank">Supreme Court overturned</a> the governor's order for residents to stay at home — and then several cities and counties <a href="https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2020/05/13/wisconsin-stay-home-order-not-over-dane-brown-counties-milwaukee-city-racine/5188700002/" target="_blank">imposed their own restrictions</a>, very similar to the governor's rules.
</p><p>
So who's running the show? It depends.
</p><p>
At the national level, President Trump has both told the 50 states to
<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/05/white-house-trump-funding-states-coronavirus-165783" target="_blank">fend for themselves</a> — and <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-claims-governors-power-states-deciding-reopening-country/story?id=70119115" target="_blank">claimed to have the authority</a> to force states to "reopen."
</p><p>
In the absence of nationwide coordination and leadership, governors have made their own decisions about how to contain the spread of the virus. Their decisions apply only to their own states, making the country a patchwork of varying efforts.
</p><p>
And with state governments lifting their lockdown restrictions to varying degrees, the patchwork is getting even more complicated. Factor in the powers and responsibilities of more than 3,000
<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/05/06/graham-county-north-carolina-coronavirus-lockdown-228601" target="_blank">counties</a>, nearly 20,000 municipalities and almost 13,000 public school districts around the country, and it becomes clear that the answer to "Who's in charge?" is not so simple.
</p><p>
Who actually has the power to make binding decisions mostly depends on two factors. First, what's being decided: Is it about public health, police, hospitals, schools, barber shops or other businesses? Second: It depends on the state.
</p><p>
Historically, the United States has divided responsibilities for different services and functions across levels of government, so they could be tailored to regional preferences where possible.
</p><p>
For instance, jails are run locally or by counties while businesses get municipal and state licenses. Animal control laws, zoning and pothole repairs are typically handled by local governments. But states typically regulate businesses and industries, oversee welfare programs and manage major highways.
</p><p>
The national government handles things where widespread coordination and standards are important — like the national defense, Social Security, space exploration and commerce among the states.
</p><p>
Before the Great Depression, state and national government duties were more clearly differentiated. Since the 1930s the system has evolved, and the distinctions between which levels do what have blurred and blended.
</p><p>
For instance, states are in charge of public schools and universities, but the federal government makes
<a href="https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html" target="_blank">school districts comply with rules</a> about equal access for all students and provides money to support needy children <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2019/10/two-decades-of-change-in-federal-and-state-higher-education-funding" target="_blank">and university research</a>. Similarly, states build and maintain interstate highways but the federal government <a href="https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-highway-trust-fund-and-how-it-financed" target="_blank">pays many of the costs</a>.
</p><p>
Today, this mixing of responsibilities has made it difficult to form a nationally coordinated response to a pandemic in which the effects are mostly local. State and local officials have tried to respond but do not have federal-level resources or buying power.
</p><p>
The federal government may claim to be able to shut down the economy, but the truth is that
<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/18/states-police-power-coronavirus-135826" target="_blank">states are responsible</a> for regulating businesses operating within their boundaries. So the federal government <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/04/14/834040912/fact-check-trump-doesnt-have-the-authority-to-order-states-to-reopen" target="_blank">can't order states</a> to close down or reopen businesses.
</p><p>
On the other hand, the president or Congress can decide to give more money to states that go along with federal requests — and
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/nyregion/sanctuary-cities-funding.html" target="_blank">potentially cut funding</a> to those that don't. States depend on federal money for <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/30/politics/trump-sanctuary-city-coronavirus/index.html" target="_blank">criminal justice</a>, education and <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-times-the-government-held-highway-funding-hostage/454167/" target="_blank">highways</a> funding, so this type of influence can be very effective.
</p><p>
Another aspect of American federalism worth noting: The Constitution ensures states retain
<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment" target="_blank">powers beyond the federal government's but also remain </a><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv" target="_blank">very independent from each other</a>. Each can develop its own policies and systems for delivering services.
</p><p>
That means potentially 50 approaches to combating a pandemic that does not respect state boundaries — and the state with the most lax standards in a sense setting the protection level for the whole nation. For instance, Arizona has reopened hair salons and theaters and now allows restaurants to serve inside. Neighboring California is
<a href="https://covid19.ca.gov/stay-home-except-for-essential-needs/" target="_blank">remaining mostly closed</a>, though its people may travel freely across the state line.
</p><p>
As if that weren't muddy enough, each state relates differently to its local governments. Constitutionally speaking, there are only two levels of government in the country — federal and state. Courts and legislatures have determined that
<a href="https://urbaninnovation.asu.edu/content/navigating-waters-between-local-autonomy-and-state-preemption" target="_blank">local governments are extensions of states</a>, with varying levels of independence.
</p><p>
In most states, local governments must
<a href="https://urbaninnovation.asu.edu/content/navigating-waters-between-local-autonomy-and-state-preemption" target="_blank">seek permission from state legislatures</a> before setting rules on topics ranging from drone flights to short-term rentals. But other states allow municipal governments to take on whatever responsibilities do not expressly belong to the state government.
</p><p>
All this means response to the pandemic varies not just from state to state, but also within states.
</p><p>
The way overlapping authority has played out is easy to see by looking at how one type of local government — school districts — responded to Covid-19. Sometimes, districts acted on their own. Other times, state departments of education ordered statewide closures, affecting districts that hadn't shut their doors. And some states never issued stay-at-home orders even though most districts had shut down.
</p><p>
As states begin to reopen, similarly confusing processes are happening in reverse. Some states with loosened restrictions have cities that want to maintain something close to sheltering in place — setting off disputes over state vs. local powers from Georgia and Utah to Texas and Colorado.
</p><p>
This
<a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/05/05/county-leaders-to-governors-let-us-make-our-own-calls-on-reopening" target="_blank">diversity of precautions</a> and actions can be seen as a strength of federalism, because it allows us to see how different responses affect the viral spread. Differing local and state decisions are creating experimental laboratories for finding different ways to move back into a fully operational economy.
</p><p>
And that's why your barbershop is still closed while the one in the next town or next state over is already open again.
</p><p>
<em>This article is republished from </em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us" target="_blank"><em>The Conversation</em></a><em> under a Creative Commons license. </em><a href="https://theconversation.com/whos-in-charge-of-lifting-lockdowns-137972" target="_blank">Click here</a><em> to read the original article.</em>
</p><p>
<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/137972/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" width="1">
</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Wisconsin provides a case study in election resilience - The Fulcrum ›
- Biden backs vote-at-home, says Trump out to undermine election ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less