AO1: There has been an increasing use of executive agencies e.g. Medicare, homeland security, Obamacare AO2: This means that that there has been more interference by presidential programmes with areas that are usually considered to be reserved to the states AO3: Despite challenges to presidential programmes in the Supreme Court, the states have largely had to adopt and accept such programmes, particularly those that prove popular with the electorate AO1: There has been an increasing use of executive orders for issues that affect individual states or regions AO2: Presidents in recent years have been accused of trying to rule by ‘decree’ and use executive orders to bypass Congress and the states AO3: As executive orders are not subject to the checks and balances included in the Constitution, other than costly and time- consuming appeals to the Supreme Court, it is difficult for states to overturn such orders AO1: There has been an increase in federal spending e.g. economic stimulus plans under Bush and Obama, Trump’s attempts to fund the wall AO2: Some of the increases in federal spending have been due to crisis e.g. 2008 economic crisis, presidents have continued the trend of increasing spending plans and introduce new projects in individual states, often without consulting states AO3: While some of these projects and the associated funds may be welcomed by some states, there are fears that such actions are setting precedents that may lead the US to a less federal system of government AO1: Use of presidential power has increased with recent presidents with strong domestic ideological platforms on issues normally left to the states to legislate on e.g. No Child Left Behind under Bush AO2: This has enforced national policy in some areas which seems to contradict the principles of federalism enshrined in the AO3: Constitution, causing concern that presidents are interfering with states’ rights

AO1: Even if it can be argued that presidential power has grown, the Constitution enshrines state powers AO2: While many of these powers are concurrent or reserved rather than explicitly stated in the Constitution, the Tenth AO3: Amendment is clear that the states are powerful in the federal system AO1: This ensures that presidential power can be checked using the means specified in the Constitution, and prevents an individual president from over-ruling the states completely AO2: Federalism has continued as states legislate on issues federal government are reluctant to do so on AO3: This has become more apparent in recent years with more frequent challenges by the states in the Courts on issues such as gun control and abortion, alongside specific state- wide policies AO1: This has been a feature of state politics even where presidents have stated support for such policies but been unable to gain sufficient support in Congress to pass measures e.g. on abortion AO2: Federalism is not in decline, as it is the political climate may have caused presidents to take action that impacts on the states government AO3: Such measures could be argued to be necessary in an emergency or for issues that need to be dealt with on a national level, rather than an attack on states powers and a decline in federalism, and welcomed in some circumstances e.g. AO1: Hurricane Katrina, financial support in the 2008 recession AO2: Presidential action that impacts on states rights and could harm federalism can and is still challenged for example sanctuary cities in response to Trump’s immigration policies AO3: States are willing to challenge federal government action on a range of policies, even when presidents circumvent AO1: Congress through the use of executive orders AO2: SC continues to maintain federalism when making rulings that uphold state rights e.g. US v Windsor, National AO3: Federation v Sibelius