“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” – James Madison; Federalist No. 45
With the expansion of power of the federal government over the past decades the topic of States rights and the balance of power between state and federal government has become a hot topic again. How far can the federal government go in expanding their power into all aspects of life? Many people point to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This amendment, the last of the original “Bill of Rights”,” clearly spells out that the Federal government’s power is limited only to those narrowly enumerated powers in the constitution.
In the past, with an acknowledgment of Constitutional restrictions, the Federal government has had to bribe the States on many issues where they had no power to compel. This bribery usually came in the form of offering federal funding to the States if, and only if, the States met certain Federal requirements. This method has been used for decades to induce States to bend to the Federal will. One example I can remember is the 55 MPH national speed limit. This was made possible only because Federal government threatened to withhold highway funds if the States did not participate in the 55 MPH maximum speed limit.
The maximum speed limit is only one example of the way the Federal government has used money to usurp State power, but at least this method acknowledges the limits of Federal power. Today, however, there seems to be no acknowledgement of this restriction in the Federal government. Congress seems to believe they can do anything they wish as long as they (Senate, House of Representatives, and President) agree. They appeal to popular will or crisis (whether real or fabricated) to justify their actions.
The balance of power between the States and the Federal government was a very large part of the debate in 1787 as the Constitution was being drafted. Would we have a federal or national form of government? A federal form of government is one where a number of sovereign States come together to form a confederated nation; one where the ultimate power resides with the States. The first form of American government, under the Articles of Confederation, was a more purely federal government. These articles were deemed to have left the Federal government too impotent since while it was given responsibilities, it did not have the power to carry them out without direct assent of the States.
When the States convened to consider amending the Articles, it was eventually decided to start over with a new Constitution. The general agreement was that the new Constitution had to retain a federal form while giving the national government the power it needed to carry out its responsibilities. A national form of government would be one where all of the power of government would be centralized in the national government and the national government would be supreme over the States. This was not what the framers wanted; these patriots were wary of too much accumulated and centralized power. To provide the proper balance between federal and national forms, the framers developed an ingenious mix of the forms that maintained the States' important role in the national government while providing the Federal government the means to act on its enumerated powers.
“The proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of Government are drawn, it is partially federal, and partly national: In the extent of them again, it is federal, not national: And finally, the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national.” -James Madison; Federalist No. 39.
The overarching principle on which the Constitution was based was republicanism in which the ultimate source of governmental power comes from the people. In a federal form, that power would come indirectly from the people through the elected State legislatures. In a national form, the power would be direct from the people. To balance these principles, the government had a mix of these elements with the Senate being appointed by the States to provide a federal input from the sovereign States; the House of Representatives being voted on directly by the people in a national manor. The President is elected in a mixture of federal and national forms with the people voting directly but their votes being considered as groups from states through the Electoral College. Federal Judges are appointed by the President (national) but must be approved by the Senate (federal). So, the checks and balances originally built into the Constitution were not only between the branches of the Federal Government but also between the Federal and State governments.
In 1913 a major change to the balance of the Constitutional government was made when the 17th Amendment was ratified by the States. This amendment changed the method of choosing Senators from being appointment from the State legislatures to a direct vote by the citizens. This makes a major move toward national government, removing the State’s control in the process. The reasons for this change were that some State bodies failed to appoint their Senators in a timely manor and some were involved in questionable methods and corruption in making their choices. This promoted a call for change. In making the change, however, it did not solve the problems but did adversely affect the delicate balance designed by the framers.
In recent years, there have been calls to replace the Electoral method of choosing the President with a direct vote. This would then give the advantage to areas with the highest populations such as New York City, and Los Angeles and move the country one more step toward nationalism. The argument for eliminating the Electoral system is that this was only done back in the beginning because it was too hard to gather votes from all across the country and that today, through technology, we can do this more easily. This argument however is not based on fact. The Electoral system was designed as part of the fine balance between nationalism and federalism.
Every step we take away from the original intention of the framers toward nationalism places more and more power into the hands of the centralized “Federal” government. This concentration of power is what the framers worked diligently to avoid. They saw this as the most dangerous enemy of a free republic.
“The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison; Federalist No. 47.
Centralized, nationalistic governments have led to totalitarianism in the past. The examples are many, but a few stand out: Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China…to name a few. I believe that it is imperative that we return to the form of government, the fine mix of federalism and nationalism, laid out by the framers of the Constitution. The 17th Amendment should be repealed and any attempt to change the method of choosing a president should be vigorously resisted. The more I look at the history of the founding of our nation, the more I am convinced of the genius of those patriot framers of the Constitution of the United States of America. I do not see this level of knowledge or patriotism displayed by the self-aggrandizing politicians of today.
I leave you with one more quote…this one by Abraham Lincoln as a Whig congressman in 1848 who said this of the Constitution:
“No slight occasion should tempt us to touch it. Better not take the first step, which may lead to a habit of altering it. Better, rather, habituate ourselves to think of it as inalterable. It can scarcely be made better than it is. New provisions would introduce new difficulties, and thus create, and increase appetite for still further change. No sir, let it stand as it is. New hands have never touched it. The men who made it have done their work, and passed away. Who shall improve on what they did?”
With the expansion of power of the federal government over the past decades the topic of States rights and the balance of power between state and federal government has become a hot topic again. How far can the federal government go in expanding their power into all aspects of life? Many people point to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This amendment, the last of the original “Bill of Rights”,” clearly spells out that the Federal government’s power is limited only to those narrowly enumerated powers in the constitution.
In the past, with an acknowledgment of Constitutional restrictions, the Federal government has had to bribe the States on many issues where they had no power to compel. This bribery usually came in the form of offering federal funding to the States if, and only if, the States met certain Federal requirements. This method has been used for decades to induce States to bend to the Federal will. One example I can remember is the 55 MPH national speed limit. This was made possible only because Federal government threatened to withhold highway funds if the States did not participate in the 55 MPH maximum speed limit.
The maximum speed limit is only one example of the way the Federal government has used money to usurp State power, but at least this method acknowledges the limits of Federal power. Today, however, there seems to be no acknowledgement of this restriction in the Federal government. Congress seems to believe they can do anything they wish as long as they (Senate, House of Representatives, and President) agree. They appeal to popular will or crisis (whether real or fabricated) to justify their actions.
The balance of power between the States and the Federal government was a very large part of the debate in 1787 as the Constitution was being drafted. Would we have a federal or national form of government? A federal form of government is one where a number of sovereign States come together to form a confederated nation; one where the ultimate power resides with the States. The first form of American government, under the Articles of Confederation, was a more purely federal government. These articles were deemed to have left the Federal government too impotent since while it was given responsibilities, it did not have the power to carry them out without direct assent of the States.
When the States convened to consider amending the Articles, it was eventually decided to start over with a new Constitution. The general agreement was that the new Constitution had to retain a federal form while giving the national government the power it needed to carry out its responsibilities. A national form of government would be one where all of the power of government would be centralized in the national government and the national government would be supreme over the States. This was not what the framers wanted; these patriots were wary of too much accumulated and centralized power. To provide the proper balance between federal and national forms, the framers developed an ingenious mix of the forms that maintained the States' important role in the national government while providing the Federal government the means to act on its enumerated powers.
“The proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of Government are drawn, it is partially federal, and partly national: In the extent of them again, it is federal, not national: And finally, the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national.” -James Madison; Federalist No. 39.
The overarching principle on which the Constitution was based was republicanism in which the ultimate source of governmental power comes from the people. In a federal form, that power would come indirectly from the people through the elected State legislatures. In a national form, the power would be direct from the people. To balance these principles, the government had a mix of these elements with the Senate being appointed by the States to provide a federal input from the sovereign States; the House of Representatives being voted on directly by the people in a national manor. The President is elected in a mixture of federal and national forms with the people voting directly but their votes being considered as groups from states through the Electoral College. Federal Judges are appointed by the President (national) but must be approved by the Senate (federal). So, the checks and balances originally built into the Constitution were not only between the branches of the Federal Government but also between the Federal and State governments.
In 1913 a major change to the balance of the Constitutional government was made when the 17th Amendment was ratified by the States. This amendment changed the method of choosing Senators from being appointment from the State legislatures to a direct vote by the citizens. This makes a major move toward national government, removing the State’s control in the process. The reasons for this change were that some State bodies failed to appoint their Senators in a timely manor and some were involved in questionable methods and corruption in making their choices. This promoted a call for change. In making the change, however, it did not solve the problems but did adversely affect the delicate balance designed by the framers.
In recent years, there have been calls to replace the Electoral method of choosing the President with a direct vote. This would then give the advantage to areas with the highest populations such as New York City, and Los Angeles and move the country one more step toward nationalism. The argument for eliminating the Electoral system is that this was only done back in the beginning because it was too hard to gather votes from all across the country and that today, through technology, we can do this more easily. This argument however is not based on fact. The Electoral system was designed as part of the fine balance between nationalism and federalism.
Every step we take away from the original intention of the framers toward nationalism places more and more power into the hands of the centralized “Federal” government. This concentration of power is what the framers worked diligently to avoid. They saw this as the most dangerous enemy of a free republic.
“The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison; Federalist No. 47.
Centralized, nationalistic governments have led to totalitarianism in the past. The examples are many, but a few stand out: Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China…to name a few. I believe that it is imperative that we return to the form of government, the fine mix of federalism and nationalism, laid out by the framers of the Constitution. The 17th Amendment should be repealed and any attempt to change the method of choosing a president should be vigorously resisted. The more I look at the history of the founding of our nation, the more I am convinced of the genius of those patriot framers of the Constitution of the United States of America. I do not see this level of knowledge or patriotism displayed by the self-aggrandizing politicians of today.
I leave you with one more quote…this one by Abraham Lincoln as a Whig congressman in 1848 who said this of the Constitution:
“No slight occasion should tempt us to touch it. Better not take the first step, which may lead to a habit of altering it. Better, rather, habituate ourselves to think of it as inalterable. It can scarcely be made better than it is. New provisions would introduce new difficulties, and thus create, and increase appetite for still further change. No sir, let it stand as it is. New hands have never touched it. The men who made it have done their work, and passed away. Who shall improve on what they did?”
