Federalism

Federalism is “a way of organizing a nation so that two or more levels of government have formal authority over the same land and people. It is a system of shared power between units of government” (Government in America, 68). The topic of federalism has led to two major debates: how much power should the national government have over the state/local government, and which topics should be a national issue or a state/ local issue? These debates started with the writing of the Constitution, and are still being discussed today. These debates started because of implied powers, commerce, and equality. These are the main issues that offset the balance of power between the national and states government. Federalism is truly a power struggle between the national and state government, both want to possess the power, but an equal balance is a hard compromise.

Federalism is a key factor in the American government. Federalism helps the government because it “decentralizes our politics” (Government in America, 69). Federalism allows the states to have a say in what goes on in the national government. An example of the decentralization of politics is senators only representing one state, rather than an entire nation. This lets the opinions of each state be heard in the national government. Federalism gives more people the opportunity to have power, and this then allows more people’s demands to be met. Because of federalism there are more levels of government where someone’s idea can be heard. When a dispute erupts there are levels of government that are there to help resolve the matter. Although federalism does help at some levels, it also causes more disputes between the National and state governments.

If there is supposed to be a balance between what the states government control and what the national government controls, why has the national government gained more power over the states? Over time four events have occurred that have given the national government more power: the doctrine of implied powers, the commerce clause, and the struggle for equality.
Implied powers are “powers of the federal government that go beyond those enumerated in the Constitution” (Government in America, 74). The debate over implied powers first began with the writing of the Constitution. The federalists believed that implied powers were necessary to run an efficient government, and with the help of implied powers the states government had no reason to intervene with the national government, “It appears from these articles, that there is no need of any intervention of the State governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the Constitution and laws of every State are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with the Constitution” (American Government, The Anti-Federalist papers No. 17, 58). The Federalists wanted as much national power as they could, they did not see the need for the states government to play a role in the national government. With the help of implied powers the national government is given as much power as it needs. The Anti- Federalists on the other hand believed implied powers gave the national government too much control. James Madison, a Federalist, argues that without the “power to make all laws… the Constitution would be a dead letter” (American Government, Federalist 44, 61-62). Madison believes that if the national government does not have full power to make laws than there is no point in the Constitution. Why is it so important that government have full control over the laws? The issue of implied powers also plays a role in the Supreme Court case MCCulloch v. Maryland. This case established that the national government would have control over the states government. This means that national government’s supremacy over the states is ok as long as the national government follows the Constitution. Implied powers can be stretched as far as the government would like, as long as the government does not break the elastic clause.

As well as debating over implied powers, there is also the debate over the power of commerce. As stated in the Constitution the national government has the power to regulate interstate and international commerce. Federalists believed that not a lot of people opposed the regulation of commerce, “The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained” (American Government, Federalist 45, 66). Federalists believed that the Anti- Federalists did not object to the national government regulation of commerce, and this is partially true. The regulation of commerce was not the main issue that Anti- Federalists had with the Constitution, but it was still an idea that Anti- Federalists disagreed on.
For years the American courts have tried to define commerce, but in the Supreme Court case Gibbons v. Ogden the word commerce was defined using a very broad definition. The Supreme Court decided that the national government would have the power to regulate interstate commerce in almost every way. It was not until the great depression hit, that regulations were put on the national government. Recently, the national government has been stepping over the lines of its power. In 2000, the case of United States v. Morrison the national government did not have the power to institute the Violence Against Women act. This act that the national government created was more of a states issue than one that the national government should be dealing with.

The struggle for inequality began with slavery and is now still going on today. When it came to racial equality the national government and the states government did not agree. The southern states wanted to keep segregation, while the national government was working against segregation. In the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court decided that segregation was unconstitutional. This did not settle with the south. The politicians of the south said that they were going to resist this decision. Governor George Wallace was very opposed to the decision of the Supreme Court, but with time Wallace realized that segregation was wrong. The issue that is being dealt with now about inequality is gay marriage.

The main disputes that occurs between the national and states governments deals with policies. The debates that occur today are whether the national or states government should regulate gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, health care, and the school systems. Some issues deal with personnel beliefs, while others deal with needs of the people. Usually states are responsible for public policies dealing with social, family, and moral issues, and the national government is responsible for issues dealing with equality, the economy, and the environment. When an issue can fit both into the national and states government responsibility, the debate is then about the issue as well as federalism. Right now, states are taking the issue of gay marriage into their own hands because it can be considered a moral issue, but can’t gay marriage also be considered an issue of equality? Isn’t there inequality in telling a same sex couple that they can’t get married? At this time states are voting for the issue of gay marriage on their own. Some states have already made it legal for a gay couple to get married. Some people believe that it is wrong for the states to have taken this into their own hands and held elections. These people believe that it is a national issue and that the states should stay out of the decision.

The issues which concern Federalism have changed greatly over the years, before Federalism dealt with the inequality of African Americans and women, and now federalism deals with the issues of gay marriage and abortion. The topics of implied powers, commerce, and equality that Federalists and Anti-Federalists argued about, are still being discussed today in Supreme Court cases. The balance of power between the states and national government will never be truly equal. Federalism has shaped the balance of power in the United States in many ways; it has been the center of many debates over history, and will continue to be the center of debates for years to come.


-Christen