Unfunded Federal Mandate

Since its beginning, the United States of America has gradually and steadily expanded the oversight and power of its own federal government. This expansion has resulted in a plethora of effects on the relationship between local state government and the federal government, both negative and positive. However, the increased impingement from the federal government onto the constitutional rights of local and state governments has created an imbalance. A major part of this imbalance has stemmed from the advent and imposition of unfunded federal mandates. This increasing implementation of unfunded federal mandates over the years has begun to stir up trouble between the states and the federal government. Now in response, local governments have not

Proponents also argue that prohibiting unfunded mandates would lead to state and local inaction on important issues. Moreover, many would also attest that there have been several effective, and borderline vital, programs that have come into existence from the use of unfunded federal mandates. Some even go so far as to argue that it is our altruistic duty as a nation to comply with the mandates, for without them many citizens would suffer. Take for example the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that congress passed in 1966. This mandated that automobile manufacturers begin installing certain safety features in their cars in order to comply with the requirements of the new law. The federal government offered no financial support for the costly changes manufacturers were obligated to make, but what is the price tag on a human’s life? Is this our altruistic duty to protect the lives of each and every American driver and passenger that takes to the road? The problem, however, lies not in the sentiment that we should take care of our fellow citizens, but in the application of this sentiment over a very large and diverse country.
Opponents of unfunded federal mandates declare that these mandates have backed the states into a fiscal corner by imposing impractical and even arbitrary conditions. In some states, as much as two thirds of the annual budget

A current example of this happening is The Real ID Act of 2005. This is an Act of Congress that modifies U.S. federal law pertaining to security, authentication, and issuance procedures standards for the state driver's licenses and identification cards, as well as various immigration issues pertaining to terrorism. The Real ID Act has met significant resistance from the states and has received significant setbacks because of it. Several states are under review and even more are not under compliance. Even now the law still exists in the books but has been virtually ignored as the federal government is unable to enforce any real sanctions. Moreover, many states have already passed legislation opposing Real ID. Though it has yet to be truly repealed, the resistance created by the states and defenders of privacy have rendered it to a stand still. Once again, it seems that this is an issue many states feel is a violation of the 10th amendment and that the demands of the program are currently, fiscally