Federalism: Issues and Importance

Over the past few weeks, I have covered some wide-ranging topics. International issues aside, any domestic issues that I've discussed, and especially the ones I will cover in the ensuing weeks, will rightfully require an examination of the issue of Federalism.

For those of you who are unfamiliar, or just did not pay attention in your high school Civics class, let’s do a review of what Federalism is, and then how it impacts the decisions our elected leaders make.

Federalism is a political concept used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces). Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. The "federation" in our country is more implicit than direct, we are the "United States" not the American Federation.

Federalism in the US is the evolving relationship between state governments and the federal government. Since the founding of the country, power shifted away from the states and towards the national government. 

The issue of federalism is one with roots as deep as our country itself. It was the most important issue arising out of discontent with the Articles of Confederation, which focused on limiting the authority of the federal government. For example, the Articles allowed the Continental Congress the power to sign treaties or declare war, but it was essentially powerless to do so because all major decisions required a unanimous vote. Discontent about this issue was greatly strengthened by the reaction to Shays' Rebellion of 1786–1787, which was an armed uprising of farmers in western Massachusetts. The rebellion was fueled by a poor economy that was created, in part, by the inability of the federal government to deal effectively with the debt from the American Revolution. Moreover, the federal government had proven incapable of raising an army to quell the rebellion, so that Massachusetts had been forced to raise its own.

The Federalists were a group of founding fathers who saw the weaknesses of the present system, and recognized the need for a stronger central government, even with the possible threat and recent memory of a strong centralized government. They were the motivation behind the Constitution as agreed by the Convention in Philadelphia. Those opposed to the new Constitution became known as the "Anti-Federalists". They generally were local rather than cosmopolitan in perspective, oriented to plantations and farms rather than commerce or finance, and wanted strong state governments and a weak national government. The Anti-Federalist critique soon centered on the absence of a Bill of Rights, assuring basic freedoms from the stronger national Government. The Federalists promised to, and did, provide in the first Congress.

 
 With the ratification of the Constitution, the Federalist movement dissipated. However, a new one; this time a political party based on the policies of Alexander Hamilton for a stronger national government, a loose construction of the Constitution, and a mercantile (rather than agricultural) economy; sprang up. These groups were distinct entities, The Democratic-Republican Party, the opposition to the Federalist Party, emphasized the fear that a strong national government was a threat to the liberties of the people. Although they were two different groups, nearly all members of the Federalist movement became members of the Federalist party and nearly all of the opponents of the Federalist movement became Democratic-Republicans, opponents of the Federalist Party.

 
Whatever division of federalism originally existed, it soon began the long trek towards a strong national government. The United States Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, set about defining the dividing lines between the layers of federalism that had not been specifically defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court settled the issues in McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden, which broadly expanded the power of the national government. Although later Courts would stress the limit of the national government to the enumerated powers, both the sixteenth and the seventeenth amendment bolstered the power of the national government, and divided state and federal power. This period became known for Dual Federalism; that is, each sovereign entity had certain roles that it took without interference of the other. (A great, descriptive definition and comparison to later types of Federalism can be found here.)

The issue of Federalism was not resolved, however, and remained so entwined with our nation that it took an estimated 700,000 lives to settle it. I’m talking of course about the Civil War. Though much hay is made about the slavery issue, that was merely one stick in a bundle of state’s rights issues that had arisen, including National Banks, taxes, tariffs, and Westward expansion. After the civil war, the issue of federalism has reappeared from time to time, although not with the drastic consequences. The war directly and succinctly brought the issue of states’ rights to a head and the discussion was settled on the battlefield; States’ rights must yield to national wishes. However, those sentiments would not go away quickly. The end of Reconstruction exacerbated the situation, and even today, the remnants of those problems remain.

Sixty years later, the Great Depression renewed the state’s rights feelings as the Federal government began instituting control over the states in the name of national economic strength. It marked an abrupt end to Dual Federalism and a dramatic shift to a strong national government. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies reached into the lives of U.S. citizens like no other federal measure had. A policy of Cooperative Federalism began developing. The national government was forced to cooperate with all levels of government to implement the New Deal policies. In cooperative federalism, federal funds are distributed through grants in aid or categorical grants which gave the federal government more control over the use of the money. This continued throughout most of the century, and from a states’ rights advocate’s perspective, the negative consequences continued. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court firmly established that the state must bend to the will of the national government through a series of controversial decisions.

Another movement calling itself "New Federalism" appeared in the late 20th century and early 21st century. In the 1980s, the Conservative Revolution began preaching the states’ rights again, although history would show that this claim was in name only. New Federalism, a gradual return of power to the states, was initiated by President Ronald Reagan with his "devolution revolution" in the early 1980s and lasted until 2001. Previously, the federal government had granted money to the states categorically, limiting the states to use this funding for specific programs. Reagan's administration, however, introduced a practice of giving block grants, freeing state governments to spend the money at their own discretion. Unlike the states' rights movement of the mid-20th century which centered around the civil rights movement, the modern federalist movement is concerned far more with expansive interpretations of the Commerce Clause. President Clinton embraced this philosophy, and President George W. Bush appeared to support it at the time of his inauguration.

In 2001, the Federal government brought the largest use of federal power against the states, what can be categorized as an unfunded mandated. That is, they said ‘This is what we want done. Now do it on your own stretched budgets, or else.”  The problem is that the federal government believes in cookie cutter solutions. It is clear that solutions that work in New York City or Los Angeles may not be appropriate in rural Iowa; and solutions that work in Minnesota may not be appropriate in Mississippi. Government looks for the easiest solution, and this may not be and is not the best solution for all places in all situations.

 
In the wake of the economic collapse of the Aughts, the Federal government is not in the position to alleviate the need at the lower levels, thus, it can be expected that a new round of states’ rights advocacy will spring up. That is in fact exactly what we are seeing with States ignoring Federal mandates and addressing marijuana, equal marriage, and other policies on their own terms. Further, the federal government, in many ways, believes they are superior to states. They believe they can create better solutions, the best solutions, and obviously this is not always true. It’s impossible when you do not take into account the ‘little’ factors- like socioeconomics, history, partisanism, geographic considerations.

Recent government policy has taken both purposeful and inadvertent steps to return power and authority to the states. However, they steps that have been taken make the problem worse, not better. It is true that the federal government is the better place for raising and allocating funds. However, the decisions on how exactly to use those funds should rest with those who have a better view of what is needed and better control to address problems: namely, the states and local government.

Federalism is not a bad thing- but it must be used in the right way. It can be a great way, if the system is changed, to allow local control with federal guidance and funding, and improve the lives of individuals.

© Robert Cheek, 2011 & 2013