Introduction The confrontation of trends of centralization and decentralization in the context of the rigid constitutional distribution of competencies of the union and American Federation – continued to be unabated in the U.S. history. This struggle was primarily around the issue of relationships, distribution of competencies between federal bodies and individual states. The changes that have occurred in this area, reflected primarily in the decisions of the Supreme Court, fixed them to the needs of the time, political expediency, and placement of the socio-political forces in the country. From the history of American Federalism The outcome of the civil war of the 60-is of the XIX century was the doctrine of eternal union, recognizing the U.S. as a single state, created by the will of the entire American people, excluding the right of any state in the Art Nouveau and the refusal to recognize the actions of the Federal Congress as unconstitutional. The dispute between the federation and its players became was focused on the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution on the right of the federal Congress to regulate interstate commerce. A doctrine of “double-sided federalism”, which comes from the fact that the scope of national government and state should be separated, but trade between the states should be governed in accordance with the Constitution of the Federal Congress, and only within the states. The broad interpretation of this doctrine has made it possible to adjust the center of almost all questions relating to the business, one way or another, going beyond the state. (Dye, 2008) The trend of centralization of “vertical”, transferring authority from the states to the center of the most vividly manifested in the “New Deal” by Roosevelt, in a concentration of funds to the crisis, the implementation of federal economic and social programs, significantly greater power of President, the growth of numerous federal regulatory departments. It persisted after the 30-is when the Supreme Court did not ascertain the views of federal and state, but justified their policy of cooperation for the solution of common socio-economic challenges. This has allowed federal authorities to regulate many areas of economic activity in the country. As a result not only agriculture but also industry had the responsibility of the federal authorities, which was supported by the Supreme Court decision in 1942 approving the general rule that Congress may take law, the constitutionality of which can not be questioned, if it relates to the regulation of almost any type of economic activity in any region of the country. (Morgan, 2008) Strengthening of the control of the federation of the states and going through the growth of their financial dependence on the center. If, before the XX-th century federal grants to states, local governments were small, then the scale began to increase sharply. Since 1960 federal aid to states doubled every five years. In 1980 it reached 28% of expenditure in the states. The enormous funds were for the implementation of 400 federal programs, among which the most important is the social assistance program for families with low income, unemployed, mothers with many c