42
Discussion
The recent establishment of the Department of Homeland Security has broad
implications for the role of the states, particularly in light of support for policy devolution
in American federalism. Administrative reorganization provides a natural experiment, as
March and Olson noted. The experiment provides a test of Constitutional authorities and
jurisdictions over activities traditionally reserved for the states.
In each of the study areas explored (federalism theory, administrative
reorganization, and the role states’ subsystems with a focus on interest groups), I concur
with some and disagree with others. The need to consolidate and revise the numerous
schools of federalism stems from the inadequacy of any one school to explain political
workings among certain actors within select policy domains. I have argued that a
conceptual bridge must be built — one that spans normative and empirical study findings,
including a perceived "continuum" of state and federal developmental and redistributive
roles and an observed "adaptability" of this same federalist system. My aim to explore
further the case of the states’ role in the debate over authority and jurisdiction of
bioterrorism initiatives will require refining of the frameworks reviewed.
Each of the sections introduced presents a different perspective on the direct and
indirect effects of government authority, size and the diffusion of power on American
federalism. Taken together, the theories and studies provide a preliminary framework for
consideration of the impact of alternative proposals for DHS reorganization on the role of
the states. While the theories and empirical studies share key themes, they diverge with
respect to perspectives on and interpretations of the evolution (devolution) of the states’
role within American federalism.
Convention