Federal System Flashcards
7 cards from real US practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 Federal System flashcards as text
The term 'fiscal federalism' refers to:
Answer: The financial relationships and transfer of funds between federal and state governments
Fiscal federalism encompasses how federal grants, mandates, and tax policies shape financial flows between national and state governments.
Interstate compacts, formal agreements between two or more states, require approval from:
Answer: Congress
Article I, Section 10 requires congressional consent for interstate compacts that could affect federal power or the balance among states.
Under New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court struck down a federal law because it:
Answer: Commandeered state legislatures to enact federal regulatory programs
The Court held that Congress cannot compel state legislatures to enact or administer federal regulatory programs, as this violates state sovereignty.
Which approach to interpreting federal power holds that states retain broad sovereign immunity from being sued in federal court?
Answer: Eleventh Amendment federalism
The Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity doctrines protect states from being sued in federal court by private citizens without the state's consent.
Which constitutional provision explicitly prohibits states from entering into treaties, alliances, or confederations with foreign nations?
Answer: Article I, Section 10
Article I, Section 10 reserves foreign affairs exclusively to the federal government by barring states from making treaties or alliances.
The political doctrine known as 'nullification,' advanced by John C. Calhoun in the 1830s, argued that states had the power to:
Answer: Void federal laws they deemed unconstitutional within their borders
Nullification held that states could declare federal laws unconstitutional and refuse to enforce them, a doctrine firmly rejected by federal courts.
In NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), Chief Justice Roberts's plurality opinion held that the ACA's Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional as written because it:
Answer: Coerced states by threatening to strip ALL existing Medicaid funding
The Court found that threatening to withdraw all existing Medicaid funds (a third of some state budgets) crossed the line from incentive to unconstitutional coercion.