Federalism

Federalism has been hotly debated since the origin of the American republic. Groups go back and forth between whether the American form of federalism gives too much or too little power to the states in contrast to the national government, and the precedent for each in the Constitution. This tug of war between the states and the national government, and direct and representational democracy, are compelling and enduring disputes.

In the beginning of the republic, the battle was to make people release their hold on state power in order to allow a stronger and more effective central government. As James Bryce mentions in his study of the American federal system, Federalism is useful because it unites “commonwealths into one nation under national government without extinguishing their separate administrations, legislatures, and local patriotisms.” (The Merits of the Federal System, Woll, 72) Federalism could be adopted “for the sake of loosening a pre-existing bond,” that of the loyalty to individual states. (The Merits of the Federal System, Woll, 72)

In order to satisfy the majority and create the union, the Federalists had to compromise on a combination government, with both central and state power. As James Madison argues in the Federalist 39 this government, enumerated by the Constitution, does contain a mixture of national and federal government, contrary to the anti-federalists’ fears. (Federalist 39, Woll, 67) For instance, the Constitution was ratified state by state, which was a federal act, as defined in Madison’s Federalist 39 where federal refers to the sharing of power with the states, and national is directly from the people. Also, the Senate is a body elected by the states, with equal representation, another federal act, while the House of Representatives is elected nationally, by the people. This combination of federal and national power allows people to be represented both individually and by their society, or state. This gives people twice the representation, in a way, because they can associate with the majority in their state but still retain individualism and power as part of a nation.

Even though there was a compromise between state and national power, many still feared the balance leaned too heavily towards the national government. After all, the Constitution did state that all national laws were supreme to state laws. James Madison tried to allay some of these fears in Federalist 44, which describes the need for the controversial “necessary and proper” clause. (Federalist 44, Woll, 61) This states that Congress can pass any laws they see a need for to help carry out all powers enumerated by the Constitution. However, since the Senate is elected by state, there is no reason why the Senate would then pass laws that severely limited state power. As he says, there is an intermediary between the people and the Constitution, because if the executive and judiciary branches do not deal immediately with the unconstitutional law, the people can simply elect a new legislature to undo the unpopular law. On these grounds, legislatures have no reason to enact severely unpopular laws, because it will put their positions in danger.

Another issue related to federalism is majority rule. With the Articles of Confederation, the government was weakened by the necessity of a unanimous decision by all states. The national government had little power, and the states had trouble compromising on taxes and such. The founding fathers saw a need for quicker decision-making and so substituted majority rule, both by state and directly by representatives elected by the people, starting with the ratification of the Constitution. This adoption of majority rules made government more efficient and practical. This also created a problem for the Federalists: how to satisfy the people that this would not create a tyrannical society ruled by the masses.

As David Broder successfully argues in “A Republic Subverted,” the system of representative democracy removes the power from the direct majority rule of the people, which is a necessary thing. As Madison argued, a pure democracy “can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.” (A Republic Subverted, Woll, 100) By removing the masses by one step, and allowing them to pick representatives that then vote on things, people are able to choose representatives that share their views but do not think as passionately and turbulently. The representative is forced to be more rational because they have to defend their actions to their constituency, whereas in direct democracy the whims of the people can create laws with unforeseen consequences. Broder also argues that unfortunately with the advent of initiatives and referendums this direct rule of the people has come to pass and is creating many of the problems foreseen by the founding fathers that made this country a republic.

Even though nowadays representational democracy is somewhat scorned and politicians are seen as “selfish, self-centered partisans, controlled by special interests and constantly on the lookout for ways to line their own pockets and pay off their pals and political sponsors,” James Bryce did indeed make some compelling arguments for the merits of the federal system. (A Republic Subverted, Woll, 103) While it might have been first adopted as a compromise between state and central or national power, Federalism proved to have other advantages. For instance, Federalism allowed the country to expand “in a more truly natural and spontaneous way than can be expected under a centralized government.” (The Merits of the Federal System, Woll, 73) Also, Federalism supposedly prevents the rise of a tyrannical government that “menaces the private liberties of the citizen.” (The Merits of the Federal System, Woll, 73) Although this has not proven entirely true, if the system were to work entirely by the Constitution tyranny might be more closely reigned in. Another benefit of Federalism is that it relieves the national legislature of many functions that would overwhelm it. Over time this has proved increasingly true, as the state governments receive more responsibility and funding for various projects, from welfare to education. It does speed the issues, and allow the national government to focus on “questions which most nearly touch the whole country.” (The Merits of the Federal System, Woll, 74)

Finally, Bryce argues that all this would not be possible without the Constitution. The Constitution has providing the outline for this Federalist government. It divides the burden of elections nearly equally between the states and the people as a nation. It allows for the check of the judiciary and executive against the possible tyranny of the legislature. It enumerates specific responsibilities to both the national and the state governments. Finally, it provides itself as an independent and supreme overseer of government, and the judiciary as its protector. The Constitution, Bryce says, secures “an efficient central government and preserves national unity, while allowing free scope for the diversities, and free play to the authorities, of the members of the federation.” (The Merits of the Federal System, Woll, 74)

It is in the Constitution that the national and state governments are balanced. Although over time the national government has become supposedly more powerful, the states have also in their own way grown in power with the advent of initiatives and referendums. The supremacy of states versus national government swings back and forth with each Supreme Court decision, which, in turn, is based on the Constitution. As long as the Constitution still stands, the true meaning of Federalism will continue to be debated.
-Ellen