The United States of America (U.S) declared its independence from the United Kingdom (U.K) in 1776. Before its independence, the founders of the 13 states of America had sort many ways to break free from British top-down, centralized government that ruled in a tyranny. The founders attempted to create the first Constitution. They named it the Articles of Confederation (AOC), which vested all its powers in individual state legislatures, leaving out powers for the national government. As a result, there was crippling debts and political chaos that almost sunk the entire nation. The founders met again in 1787 at a place called Philadelphia, and a new Constitution was drafted that saw the separation of national powers and state, commonly known as Federalism. The word “federalism” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, but it was/is the guiding principle that safeguards Americans by providing a check and balance against bad governance. Thus, as it shall be demonstrated in this paper, the founding fathers were correct in introducing Federalism and separating state powers.
According to Amadi et al. (2017), Federalism is a government system where sovereignty is divided between a constituent political unit and central governing authority. In other words, it is based on democratic rules and institutions where the governing power is shared between the state and national government; thus, creating a federation. Federalism is a political movement that rose to become more influential, arising from the discontent of the AOC (Wright & Jensen, 1941). The political movement was significantly strengthened by Shay’s Rebellion in 1786, an army uprising consisting of farmers in Western Massachusetts. The prolonged poor economy fueled the rebellion further when they watched the federal government deal effectively with the American Revolution debt. Additionally, the federal government was incapable of forming an army that could quell the rebellion. Massachusetts had to develop its own.
Federalist No. 46 is an essay written by Madison that reminds his audience that the American people are the only denominator for the federal and state governments. While these two governments have different powers, they are subject to control the voters for other purposes. Thus, Madison uses a series of arguments to convince people that state governments have various natural benefits over federal governments when securing the votes of the people (McDowell, 2019). Given the advantages posed by the state governments, Madison argues that citizens can only be loyal to the federal government if it becomes more capable. And if that happens, then the state will have little to fear as the federal power can only be advantageously administered to a specific sphere. In case one arm goes too far, then the advantage will lie within the State government. This is because the state actions have presumably been popular with Americans. The federal government can only overcome the state by using force, which can be taken with reluctance. Assuming the federal government goes too far, there will be no co-operation from the state’s people, which could lead to an obstruction of the federal actions.
While the framers had hoped to develop a unitary system of government, both states were kept as they were well-established and functioning. Also, the Americans had a popular attachment to their states. Thus, the Framers gave the national government a few expressed powers and reserved the remaining forces to the state. The most vital concept of Federalism is the idea of dual sovereignty. The fact that two governments are manning the same territories means a constant power struggle. Hence, it ensures that no one abuses their power. For instance, the federal government can force states to use the Bill of rights through sanctions and court rulings.
Furthermore, Madison assumes that the power advantage of states is that an individual elected in the federal government will have some local interests and dispositions over a particular state. On the other hand, no state official will favor the national interest over local interests. Indeed, Madison’s analysis has proved accurate for the longest time. It does not matter the state of affairs; state governments with solid support have been known to frustrate the unpopular demands of the federal power.
Overall, Federalism is not only good for the government but Americans. It is a more responsive system to citizens as local governments allow laws to be tailored to suit the local population. Notably, it is easier to change things at a state level than at a federal level. Also, while Federalism has accommodated diversity of opinions, it promotes policy innovation (Ryan, 2016). For instance, a few laws have been passed that have become American’s breakthroughs. Some of these laws include child labor laws, which were inspired by state policies. Some rules were given that allowed women to vote; some states established environmental policies to curb fuel emissions. States like Kentucky, Connecticut, and Washington have had health insurance exchanges that have improved their health policies.
From the point of liberty, the three branches of government do not belong to anyone or a particular class. In the same breath, people should not feel that Congress belongs to them, but the Constitution belongs to them. The separation of powers is the best weapon for preventing tyranny and promoting a good government. Further, it allows the federal branches of government to perform their functions actively. Therefore, the framers of the Constitution saw it fit for powers of government to be divided to avoid a group of men wielding them all at once. If that happens, there will constantly be a case of injustice and tyranny.
However, some opposed Federalism, and they were popularly known as Anti-Federalists (Gatica, 2019). They were local and not cosmopolitan, whose orientation focused more on farms and plantations than finance and commerce. In simple words, they wanted a weaker national government with a strong state government. Besides, they believed that the legislative branch had unchecked powers, the executive had too many powers, and the chief executive had no check. The Anti-Federalist wanted the Bill of Rights coupled with the Constitution to avoid a dictator exploiting Americans. Contrary, the federalists strongly opposed that idea, arguing that it was impossible to list all the rights and those that were not listed were not in the official Bill of rights, thus, could be overlooked.
Moreover, the Wilsonian approach changed the executive branch’s role by equating their argument to “political witchcraft.” Their system advised countrymen to have a “fearless ‘criticism” against the Constitution Wilson’s political thought, in a real sense, rejected the separation of powers by favoring a modern approach of separating politics and administration (Aligica, 2016). Also, in rejecting the doctrine of separation of powers, the Wilsonian method reformulated the political debate and put democracy and the rule of checks and balances at the last bottom in the evolution of a good government. As a result, this approach changed the role of government as enshrined in the Constitution. Instead, the government has to adjust to changes in the environment, as its structure constantly is no longer ordained by the laws of Nature.
Madison does not expect the Constitution to be the leading cause of the conflicts between federal authority and state government. Instead, he strongly opposes his opponents’ arguments of the federal command crushing state governments. He alleges that such chimerical predictions are entirely unfounded. Federalism has been the most outstanding achievement of America since the framers were able to create an effective constitutional structure that comprised all political institutions. The two crucial aspects of the Constitution that still linger on is the separation of powers and Federalism. To save the country from political chaos, the framers had to divide government powers. Hence, the crucial function of Federalism was to limit the powers of government by establishing two sovereign powers- the state and national governments.
References
Aligica, P. D. (2016). Public Administration and the Classical Liberal Perspective. Administration & Society, 49(4), 530–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399715581044
Amadi, O., Echem, M., & Nwoko, M. (2017). The Theory and Practice of Federalism: A Critical Analysis of History and Global Trend. International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Science, 1(7), 42. http://ijses.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/109-IJSES-VIN6.pdf
Gatica, O. F. (2019). Federalist and Anti-Federalist: Two Divergent Concepts of Politics. Studia Philosophica Wratislaviensia, 14(1), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.19195/1895-8001.14.1.9
McDowell, G. L. (2019). Forging the American Nation, 1787–1791: James Madison and the Federalist Revolution. Journal of American History, 106(3), 742–742. https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/jaz545
Ryan, E. (2016). Secession and Federalism in the United States: Tools for Managing Regional Conflict in a Pluralistic Society. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2775377
Wright, B. F., & Jensen, M. (1941). The Articles of Confederation: An Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution, 1774-1781. The New England Quarterly, 14(1), 174. https://doi.org/10.2307/360116
write