Constitutional Interpretations of FEDERALISM [AP Gov Review Unit 1 Topic 8]

GET FOLLOW-ALONG NOTEGUIDES for this video: bit.ly/3XMSawp
AP HEIMLER REVIEW GUIDE (formerly known as the Ultimate Review Packet):
+AP Gov Heimler Review Guide: bit.ly/3rfXr2Y
Additional HEIMLER REVIEW GUIDES (formerly known as Ultimate Review Packet):
+AP US History: bit.ly/44p4pRL
+AP World History: bit.ly/46rfHH1
+AP European History: bit.ly/3PCPyiw
+AP Essay CRAM Course (DBQ, LEQ, SAQ Help): bit.ly/3XuwaWN
HEIMLER’S HISTORY MERCH! / @heimlershistory
Tiktok: @steveheimler
Instagram: @heimlers_history
Heimler's History DISCORD Server: / discord
In this video Heimler walks you through Unit 1 Topic 8 (1.8) for the AP Government (AP Gov) curriculum. Here we see the basis for federalism both in the Constitution and in two required Supreme Court cases.
In the Constitution, the sharing of power between state and national governments (i.e., federalism) is rooted in the 10th amendment, 14th amendment, the commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause (among others).
But the interpretation of those constitutional provisions has been argued in cases like McCulloch v. Maryland, in which the Court ruled in favor of federal power, and United States v. Lopez in which the Court ruled in favor of state power.

[@Emilythesquishy]

i’ve been here since heimler had 20k. now he has 200k and has helped me get a 5 on my ap world exam and now i’m studying ap gov with him 💗

[@saakshibharadwaj395]

omg emily sameeee

[@Emilythesquishy]

@@saakshibharadwaj395 AYYY

[@Emilythesquishy]

@@saakshibharadwaj395 lol we have an frq tomorrow ✊🏻✊🏻

[@saakshibharadwaj395]

@@Emilythesquishy yeah saw this now. it wasn't too bad I guess.

[@arnavgupta8590]

quick addition: lopez argued that if the mere posession of an object can be regulated by the commerce clause, then that leads to theoretical infinite power. thats why supreme court checked congress power with a (5-4) for lopez

[@nicksabanthegoat4443]

“Weaaaaaaak sauccccccce”🤣🤣🤣Learning and Laughing…great content

[@heimlershistory]

So weak…

[@armandoperez8761]

this IS SO PERFECT. i am learning this on tuesday and youre literally going ahead of us by at least two units and ITS PERFECT to follow easily

[@BlessedwithFavor]

YelP!

[@faithmanchester6581]

❤❤❤❤❤ thank you so much. I am a senior so this is probably the last time I watch your videos so thank you for helping me pass my ap exams, your amazing, thank you ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@yanalswaiss8540]

keep making these please they help so much

[@FollowerofDuck]

this man helped me get a 4 on my apush exam yall

[@Stew2498]

Awesome thank you

[@BlessedwithFavor]

Thanks for sharing this TRUTH.

[@IillyMacdovers-cc6ob]

Between and afterward I could then enforce the appropriate nature of seeing a name in front of each one of us as part of Devin's

[@tobijames4698]

POV: ur studying for Mr. Cole's Federalism test tomorrow

[@alexpiscitelli2187]

i love you

[@TheTechZombie]

I know that you try to keep these short and snappy, which I appreciate as a teacher who sometimes uses your videos, but I think you miss a lot of context about just how the Lopez decision fits into the overall trend of the shifts in the balance between the Federal government and the states. You mention McCulloch v Maryland, which no doubt was the largest shift in the balance of the federal government of its time, but in a pragmatic sense, McCulloch didn't really change much. It was a large precedent that served as the foundation for many other cases, but the majority of governmental power still squarely resided with the states even long after McCulloch. It wasn't until the New Deal era that the shift towards the dominance of the federal government really starts to take hold. While there are many cases that slowly shift this power, I think the case that gives the most context (particularly for the Lopez decision) is the case of Wickard v Filburn. This case expanded the interpretation of the Commerce Clause (the foundation of the Lopez decision) to nearly incorporate every action the federal government could conceivably do. This was the debate in the Lopez decision. Could something as wholly unconnected to commerce as gun control in schools be reasonably granted as a power under the commerce clause? The Supreme Court said no, which put a limit on the commerce clause that had been growing to incorporate just about every policy of the federal government. I think this context is really lacking in explaining the importance of the Lopez decision. I love your videos and I know Wickard isn't a required case in the AP's eyes, but quickly explaining it in between the McCulloch and the Lopez explanations would add so much to the conversation about federalism. Either way, awesome videos, keep up the great work!

[@heimlershistory]

Agreed on all counts. I leave a TON out of these videos, and I wouldn’t be offended in the SLIGHTEST if you told your students so. In these videos I’m literally just going through the CED and reproducing what they say there (although hopefully more entertaining). I go way more in depth with my own students. Sounds like your students have a good teacher, and I’m glad for them.

[@bridgettef2601]

You give me a headache

[@madisonforest2704]

Then don’t watch lol

[@hahah912]

womp womp