AMERICAN FEDERALISM / school paper by Thai Ta, 2006
————–
From its conception to its present state, American Federalism has shaped the landscape of American politics and influenced the lives of all U.S. citizens and those living here in the United States. For this essay, I will first define what federalism is, how it has evolved over the years. Next, I will discuss the importance of federalism in our government, our daily lives. Then, as with everything else under the sun, there are pros and cons regarding this federalist system. I will provide arguments for both.
Federalism, as proposed by James Madison and other Framers in their series of the Federalist papers, is a system where different levels of government can have and share powers over the governed population. It was a brilliant compromise/combination of the two opposing political systems at the time. There were those who favored a strong unitary system where a king-like figure would head the nation and all the states would have to obey. In the other direction, people wanted their states to have the real powers, and this confederation system of government would only allow a weaker national authority with limited powers. American Federalism, with its deliberate flexibility, was adopted. The states had powers over particular state issues. The national government could exercise its powers on areas that concerned all the states. And everyone was happy, more or less.
To ensure that the national government would not become a dictatorial monster itself, the Framers introduced a solution — checks and balances. The government would have three distinct branches, their officials elected by different methods, and each would have certain powers and/or influences over the other branches. One compromise resulted in the bicameral Congress, where the Representatives and the Senate satisfied both issues regarding the size of the population and of the states. Big or small, the states could have only two senators. But, if a state had a larger population, it had an advantage in the House of Representatives. From the beginning, the Framers did not trust the will or wisdom of the majority, and that philosophy was reflected in the electoral college. The presidency was thought to be the most powerful post, and of the three branches, the judiciary the least powerful. Perhaps to compensate for this, Supreme Court justices were appointed for life. (Today, they are arguably the most powerful positions in our government, and there have been questions raised about the wisdom and validity of their lifetime appointments.)
Federalism has always been manipulated to serve the interests of those in power or those seeking for power. Over the course of history, new forms of federalism have emerged for a while until the next version. It boils down to power play and what the situations need. As the result, either national power or state power will be the dominant force in the federalist system. More often than not, the federal courts would play the crucial roles ruling in favor of either national or state governments. The current form of federalism that we have today is not the same as what the Framers intended. That is not to say it is better or worse, for every versions of federalism have their purposes and their levels of effectiveness. Here are some examples.
In the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, where the state imposed tax on a national bank, national power won the day. The ruling by Marshall made clear that the implied powers did include the constitutional right of Congress to charter a national bank, and by taxing the bank, Maryland sought to undermine congressional power. Marshall continued to give national power a boost with his ruling in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, where the two men applied for licenses from two different sources. Marshall’s ruling let the national government have one of the most powerful means to negotiate or battle with the states — the Interstate Commerce Clause (of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) in its broadest interpretation.
In the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, segregation in public school in particular (and social injustice in general) once again demanded a national response. Personal rights which once were protected by the states, thus widely varied and subjected to abuse, now lied with the national government. In subsequent transformations — Cooperative Federalism during the Great Depression, Creative Federalism in the 60s — our national government expanded the role of the protector in every field imaginable, such as education, health care, transportation. Medicare, Medicaid, farm aid, programs fighting against drugs, programs aiding immigrants and migrant laborers, bilingual education programs, food stamps for the poor, etc. were the products of this “national-government-as-the-ultimate-protector” way of thinking.
It was not long before federalism began to swing the other way, shifting the power back to the states, or at least our presidents (Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush) tried to, often with mixed results. In the case of United States v.Lopez, where a federal law regarding firearms possession within a school area was challenged, the states won the day. Rehnquist rejected the argument that Congress could justify the Gun-Free School Zones law because whatever crimes resulted in and around schools would somehow affect the economy of the whole country. He started the shift to give the states more powers. With the conservatives occupying all three branches of government as the majority, it looks like this trend of federalism will be with us for a long while yet.
Federalism is the cornerstone of our government and its impacts are felt in all levels of our society and our daily life. A single event happening somewhere in our country can lead to lawsuits, reinterpretations of the law, and eventually finds its way to affect us all. At the center of most hotly debated subjects, such as terrorism, abortion, gay marriage, we will find this dilemma: Is it the concern of the states or should the national government step in?
The anti-terrorism efforts often are left to the states, with the national government providing whatever money it can and not much else in terms of coherent leadership. As the result, states are inadequately prepared. If a natural disaster like Katrina could spotlight all the shortcomings of local, state, and federal responses, imagine an all out terrorist attack if/when the next 9/11 happens. Yet, logic would allow states to be the main players since not all states have the same risk of being attacked. The real problem then is how to help the states to help themselves.
Abortion with its nation-dividing effect is once again testing our federalist system. Will the newly conservative majority of the judiciary branch make history with the ruling that all pro-lifers hope for? Will they leave the matter to individual states or surprise and delight those who are pro-choice with an upholding verdict on Roe v. Wade?
Gay marriage is another issue that asks us to draw the line between individual rights, minorities’ rights, states’ rights and those of the majority, the country as a whole. Surveys have suggested that most people feel alright with gays having certain rights in their civil unions. As for full rights and the definition of a “gay marriage”, most do not want. Then again, the Framers of our Constitution did not trust the wisdom of the majority from the beginning. It will be interesting to see how this issue gets settled in the future, and whether state power or national power would allow gay marriages to occur.
No one can deny that federalism has worked well for our country so far and maybe forever, but there are pros and cons with this system. The advantages include:
1. Federalism allows a vast country such as ours to have a unifying force and also the flexibilities at local levels. The balancing act between states and national government is beneficial to the political health in general. The checks and balances between the three branches of government provide less opportunities for the abuse of power.
2. States have certain room and incentives to try out new programs, and if they work well, the rest of the country can adapt. This has been the case with Social Security, school vouchers, etc. and it should be the case for Muslim sensitivity training programs.
Some of the disadvantages of federalism are:
1. In a federalist system, the poor states can not provide for their citizens like the rich states. It’s all about money and grants. When you’re a poor state, the national government can do its best or its worst for you. For example, the victims of 9/11 and the victims of Katrina received different levels of aid, from millions of dollars to next to nothing.
2. Groups of special interests can further their agenda to the point of imposing on the rest of the country by citing states’ rights. Good or bad, right or wrong, these groups have the possibilities of affecting everyone.
Federalism has changed with the times and more than likely will transform more in the future. At its core, however, the distribution of powers has proven to be the magic ingredient that allows our nation to maintain its government and its governed citizens to participate in the political process. Perhaps one day the “entrepreneurial government” model suggested by Osborne and Gaebler from Reinventing Government will catch on. As they wrote, “We do not need more government or less government, we need better government.”
—————–
1. Berman, Larry & Murphy, Bruce A., 2005. Approaching Democracy. Upper Saddle River: New Jersey.
2. Gaebler, Ted & Osborne, David. Reinventing Government. From Course Packet.
3. Kincaid, John. State Constitutions in the Federal System. From Course Packet.
