How Does Roosevelt Differ From That Of Cooperative Federalism?

2.1) Franklin Delano Roosevelt has come into office and his new policies enacted signal the beginning of a new form of federalism in the United States, Cooperative Federalism, but what is it ? Cooperative Federalism relies heavily on grants that are awarded to the states for following through with government laid out goals. It is often referred to as “marble cake” opposite that of Dual Federalism which was referred to as “layer cake” federalism. When FDR polices came into effect the change in federalism was quite clear. As follows, “intergovernmental cooperation and sharing have blurred a once-clear distinguishing line, making it difficult to say where the national government ends and the state and local governments begin” (WTP 92). There were
also other forms of federalism that came into play after FDR’s time as president, one is known as regulated federalism. How does regulated federalism differ from that of cooperative federalism ?
In the 1970s regulated federalism began to build up steam as for how our new form of federalism would operate. In this new method, of regulated federalism, congress would pass laws requiring states and localities to follow through with out a choice or say in the matter. This is contrast to cooperative federalism as the federal government did not directly force states and localities to follow through, but if they did not they would not receive government grants and funding in that certain area. However, the government did have good reason for this practice, they wanted to create more unity and uniformity between the states, “The effect of these national standards is that state and local policies in the areas of environmental protection, social services, and education are more uniform from coast to coast than are other nationally funded policies”(WTP 94). Therefore, the practice of regulated federalism did not differ much, the difference was that in cooperative federalism the government put an incentive into following through with their goals that they have laid out, while regulated federalism enforced laws passed by congress not giving states or localities in say in the
matters.

2.2) It is the hallmark of American freedoms, you will hear quite often Americans proclaiming that they have a freedom to speech, well what exactly does that mean, and what is it ? To start off, This freedom of speech is coupled in the first amendment with a handful of other rights ratified in 1791, saying that congress can not pass a law that in anyway would thwart our abilities of speaking freely or there being consequences for citizens’ critiques of the government.
We also have another form of free speech called free speech plus which also includes actions being considered free speech, an example of this would be handing out leaflets or burning the flag (WTP 125).
However, what many people do not necessarily know is that there are limits to our free speech and the supreme court has spoken on this topic for cases stating what would have to happen for these rights to be voided, “The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action [emphasis added]” (WTP 123). Most of our rights have limits to them as it is for our protection and and the supreme court has a set of ways to be able to decide when our speech is no longer
protected. So not all speech is protected speech ? The answer to that question is a simple yes, but getting to the decision if it is protected speech or not is not as simple of a question. We saw the first modern day Supreme Court case on this topic after World War One when a group opposing the United States involvement in the war had been arrested, but were claiming they were just exercising their freedom of speech (WTP 123). In this case the Supreme Court ruled their speech was not protected and stemming from it was the creation of the “clear and present danger” test. “As long as speech falls short of actually inciting action, it can-not be prohibited, even if it is hostile to or subversive of the government and its policies” (WTP 123). That was a statement made at Supreme Court case for the arrest of a Ku Klux Klan member who was arrested in Ohio, but was later freed after the Supreme Court decided there was no clear and present danger.
In conclusion, as American Citizens we have the right of protected speech where we can speak our minds; however all things have their limits as to how far we are protected for the safety and protection of the public.

2.3) Civil Rights are the foundation of what makes America different from tyrannical regimes who impose their will on the people. These laws in our republic are put in place so that the government is forced to protect the rights of all citizens from the government itself; however they have not always followed through with doing so for all people. “With the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, civil rights became part of the Constitution, guaranteed to each citizen through “equal protection of the laws.” This equal protection clause launched a century of political movements and legal efforts to press for racial equality” (WTP 157). For much of Americas dark history African Americans were barley treated as humans, and were not always guaranteed these rights that were stated in the constitution. Even when these rights were guaranteed to African Americans they also had other hurdles to get over such as legal segregation. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed segregation and discrimination was a daily battle for African Americans. Two types would be de facto (by fact) and de jure (by law). De facto is when there is no actual law enforcing a practice in a society, but it has just become a social norm of that society, while on the other hand de jure is when it is an enforceable law by the government. As an example, school segregation is where these two types of discrimination come into play, in southern states, laws were passed legally allowing school segregation. Many people think that northern states were racism and discrimination free, legally that may be some what true, but the practice of de facto discrimination played a role. An example of this would be, “Boston school authorities were found guilty of deliberately building school facilities and drawing school districts “to increase racial segregation”(WTP 171). So while yes the discrimination of the south was being openly touted and obvious in their de jure methods, other places that did not have these laws in effect were discriminating with de facto methods, making it a part of the culture and making it possible through zoning, socioeconomic factors and other dividing methods. In conclusion, Civil Rights are what protects us from governmental oppression, but that has not always been in the case for all citizens of the United Sates due to segregation, and different forms of discrimination.