Federalism and State Powers - Essay Example

Due Federalism and Powers Since its inception, the division of power in the United s’federal structure of governance has been one subject of fierce contestations characterizing continuous political battles extending to the court corridors. Having suffered the tyrannical British political and economic policies while under colonialism eventually leading to a revolution for freedom, many greatly distrusted a centralized system of governance. Tasked with drawing up the Articles of confederation in 1781, the Congress literally opted for few powers being assigned to the new central government. As a matter of fact, the original federal government not only had little authority over confederate states and their activities such as commerce, the system had no court system and taxation powers. Essentially, the confederation was a loose union of politically sovereign governments, with each state having a free hand in regulating own commercial activities and having independent courts structures (McWilliams 10-15). The hindrances of the fragmented nature of the government with respect to national political and economic growth soon dawned on many Americans. As such, a reevaluation was thus necessary and so a Constitutional Convention was called in 1787 to restructure the government and harmonize functioning of the national and state economies. Finally, the “Great Compromise” was struck paving the way for federalism as the basis for governmental control. In the spirit of the US Constitution, Federalism is a dual system of sovereignty in which power was to be split between the central government and state governments. The agreement set fourth the United States Constitution as the Supreme law of the land with elaborate federal power system of shared responsibilities (U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2). Both levels of governments were to have a direct influence over the US citizenry through officials and enacted laws in both levels of governance. Noteworthy, changes in the constitutions governing the conduct of both the federal and state governments had to be consultative to promote magnanimity referred to in the superior laws. Articles I to VI of the supreme law basically define powers of the national government putting restrictions on what states’ spheres of influence. Accordingly, only the national government has authority to coin money, govern Indian tribes, conduct foreign relations, raise armies and a navy and declare war whenever necessary. Concerning the court system hitherto a thorn before the ratification of the constitution, only the Supreme Court was elaborately named in the US Constitution. Establishment of other federal courts fell under the powers of Congress. Declared under Article VI of the Constitution, the US constitution is the supreme law governing every aspect of governance in the entire nation. It apportions certain distinct powers to the federal government (enumerated powers) effectively limiting state powers to avoid conflict of interest. However, it also reserved other powers to the respective states (literally known as reserved powers). While State governments derive their authority from the people as outlined in their respective constitutions, the ratification of the United States Constitution basically transferred certain powers to the federal government effectively limiting state powers with respect to certain areas of policy action. According to the Tenth Amendment, “all powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states were retained by the states.” Accordingly, states retained “police power" to enact laws governing health and safety, and those required to enhance economic welfare of the citizenry. Both levels of governments hold overlapping powers in certain areas. In general, issues regarding public security in terms of crime control, education, public health services, transport systems, and the general infrastructure are primarily state responsibilities. Nevertheless, all of these programs have had significant federal funding alongside regulations of use in certain instances. Of Particular importance in defining boundary lines between national and state governments’ areas of jurisdictions have been the Supremacy, the Necessary and Proper, the Commerce, and the Contract Clauses. These clauses acknowledge the supremacy of the national government over the regional governments. The Commerce Clause expressly grants exclusive powers of overseeing interstate commerce to the federal government. The Necessary and Proper Clause in Article I of the constitution enumerates powers of the Congress. As stated above, the Supremacy Clause puts the US Constitution above states constitutions and subsequently bounds courts Judgments in every State. The supremacy clause is further strengthened by the Contract Clause barring states from making laws capable of impairing obligatory Contracts. Another concept of the US federal system that helps in explaining the complicated relationships between the two levels of government is judicial federalism over key constitutional provisions extending to the Bill of Rights as well as the Fourteenth Amendment. Amendments to the Constitutional so far coupled with the Supreme Court interpretations regarding application of the provisions thereof have changed over time. The inclination has been toward the concepts of centralization and incorporation with an expanded role of the federal government. Indeed, the original powers delegated to the Supreme Court in Article III of the Constitution have been far reaching. In 1802, Chief Justice John Marshall adjudicating on the case of Marbury v. Madison pioneered and expressly articulated the Courts power with reference to its role in exercising judicial review- the power to declare acts of the executive, the national legislature as well as those of regional states unconstitutional should they undermine the spirit of the national Constitution. However, the emotive debate that still lingers in many minds concerns the rights granted to states as well as individuals with respect to the extent of sovereignty in relation to the actions of the federal government. Apparently, these were the same issues at the epicenter of the American Civil War. Even though the constitution expressly provides for admission of new states on an equal footing; power that rests with congressional oversight exercised last in 1959 with the admission of Hawaii and Alaska, the same Constitution is silent on unilateral secession of any particular state from the union (Pavković and Radan 222). However, the Supreme Court has maintained that secession is utterly unconstitutional, a position driven in part by the experiences of the American Civil War. A critical analysis of American history reveals a blurry divide between the powers of the national government to those of regional states. In practice, the balance between the two levels of government has constantly been contested. As such, certain periods in the US federal history are more identifiable with creative metaphors. Whereas limited to powers enumerate in the Constitution, there have been broad interpretation of the federal government areas of jurisdiction potentially overlapping with state authority. While the US Constitution carved out significant spheres of influence from the regional governments, it also contains “implied powers” granting Congress the authority under Article I, Section 8, to enact “necessary” for the “proper” functioning of enumerated powers. Therefore, Congress makes all laws required to enable Execution of the foregoing Powers in addition to other Powers vested in the national Government as well as Departments and their officers thereof by the US Constitution (Article I, § 8, cl. 18). States generally legislate on all issues within their territorial jurisdictions. This “police power” is attributable to states’ territorial sovereignty. The national Constitution does, however, put caps on that power. States have relatively limited authority regarding their foreign imports and exports extending to how they conduct their foreign affairs (USC. Art. I, §10, cl. 2). They are also bound to respect court decisions of other states. In all cases involving frictions in the functioning of the dual system, the Supreme Court has been the arbiter, with most of its decisions seemingly favoring the national government, in effect expanding the scope of its operations. Armed with judicial review powers, the Supreme Court as the arbiter of Constitutional matters has decided on various questions. Chief Justice John Marshall was at it again defending federal-supremacy in the 1819 case of McCulloch v. Maryland. In the case, the Court reaffirmed the supremacy of the national government by expanding the powers granted to Congress through its broad interpretation of "necessary and proper" powers, thus striking down Marylands taxation intentions on the Bank of the U.S. Indeed, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution has been a matter of conflict between the state and national governments. According to the Cambridge Economic History archives, "the period after mid 1880s witnessed the supreme court decisions with regards to Commerce Clause inclined towards increasing the federal power (Lewis 464). Confirming the same, the case of Wickard v. Filburn 317 US 111 heard by the court in 1942 again served to enhance the federal powers to enable its effective regulation of economic activities within its territorial borders. In fact, the decision upheld federal authority under the same Clause extending it to those activities local in character (Shultz 522). Accordingly, Congress was given the leeway to regulate railway traffic across states lines as well as those solely within a given state. The argument was that intrastate traffic has the possibility of impacting on interstate commerce, either positively or negatively. Congressional power also rules over taxation matters—the Congress has the power to impose taxes uniformly across the nation and subsequently distribute the resulting proceeds in accordance with terms set by same institution. The federal-aid highway system is largely funded by the national government to serve the interests of regional governments. Occasional threats to withhold these funds by Congress have had considerable pressures forcing respective state legislatures to pass certain desirable laws in the national interest. Clearly, such instances infringes on states rights. In the case of South Dakota versus Dole decided by the 483 US 203” heard in 1987, the Supreme Court in support of the practice maintain that Congress actions were in accordance with the Spending Clause enshrined in the US Constitution. Notably, not all judicial decisions adjudicated by the court so far been in favor of national power. In 1997, the case of Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court invalidated federal law requiring local police agencies to dig deep into the background information gun purchasers. According to the ruling, the law was a violation of the Tenth Amendment. In a five-to-four majority decision, Justice Antonin Scalia declared The Federal government directive issuance on the same fundamentally incompatible with constitutional provisions of dual sovereignty. Work cited Lewis, Stanley E. The Cambridge economic history of the United States: the colonial era. Cambridge University Press. 2000. Print. McCulloch v. Maryland. 17 U.S. 316. Supreme Court of the US. 1819. Supreme Court Collection. Legal Information Inst., Cornell U Law School, n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2012. McWilliams, Wilson C. The Federalist, the Antifederalist, and the American Political Tradition. New York: Greenwood Press, 1992. Pavković, Aleksandar and Peter Radan. Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession. Ashgate Publishing, 2007. Print. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898. Supreme Court of the United States. 1997. Supreme Court Collection. Legal Information Inst., Cornell U Law School, n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2012. Shultz, David. Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court. InfoBase Publishing, 2005. Print. South Dakota v. Dole 483 US 203. Supreme Court of the United States, 1987. Supreme Court Collection. Legal Information Inst., Cornell U Law School, n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2012. Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700. Supreme Court of the United State, 1868. Supreme Court Collection. Legal Information Inst., Cornell U Law School, n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2012. Wickard v. Filburn. 317 US 111. Supreme Court of the US. 1942. Supreme Court Collection. Legal Information Inst., Cornell U Law School, n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2012. Read More