State Laws versus National supremacy - Essay Example

State Laws versus National supremacy Federalism is a structure of government with one central government and other smaller units such as states in the United States of America. It is a system of government in which the sovereignty is sub divided into the central government and other constituent units such as provinces or states (Wilson, 2008). State rights refer to the political supremacy set aside for the American state governments other than the federal government in line with the American Constitution. Supremacy Clause is available in Article six of the American national constitution. It states that federal treaties and statutes form the supreme laws of the land and provides that these are the supreme and highest forms of law in the legal system of U.S. and mandates that all state statutes must follow the Federal law whenever a conflict occurs between the state law and federal law (Wilson, 2008). The architects of the New Federalism, a program that permitted states to decisions concerning local issues, were George Bush and Ronald Reagan. For 200 years, the relationship between the two governments has shifted more towards the national supremacy, though several observers today believe that the power balance is beginning to stretch out back to the states. One major sign that the national government was growing in the 1960s was the great number of categorical grants that existed during that time (Luca, Miroff, Seidelman, Swanstrom, 2009). There has been a debate on power distribution between the national government and the U.S. States began as early as 1787 with the founding of the Republic and continues up to today. This debate was firstly brought about because of division of powers between the federalists and anti-federalists. The Federalists were in support for a strong national government and a relatively weaker state government as well as separation of powers between the two governments. The Anti-federalists supported strong state governments with the fear that the government could threaten people’s rights (Wilson, 2008). Most recently, with the introduction of the Republican government, the republicans brought about an effort to slow down the growth and development of the Federal government by returning most of the functional units back to the state. This process was referred to as the Devolution Revolution. However, the Supreme Court of the U.S has continued to make decisions concerning the relationship between the federal government and the state government and acting as an intermediary in cases of conflicts between the two governments. The Supreme Court makes decisions that have a big impact on the powers of the two (Luca, Miroff, Seidelman, Swanstrom, 2009). In most cases, the political process makes the final decision on how powers are divided between the state and national governments but most recently, the Supreme Court, has risen as the final say over the debate concerning what each level should do, to whom and for whom. This role was claimed by the Supreme Court out of the outcome of the case between McCulloch v. Maryland where the state of Maryland levied a tax against a certain bank, Baltimore branch in the United States and was then challenged and disputed in court by one James McCulloch. James McCulloch was a cashier at the bank and declined to pay the tax levied against the bank and gave a reason that a state is not allowed by the law tax an instrument that belongs to the national government. Chief Justice, John Marshall who was deciding over the case decided to set forth the canon of National Supremacy which states that in the event of a case occurring between the constitutionally approved actions of the National government and those of the local or state government, then the actions of the Federal government are supreme and thus prevails. This decision dealt a big blow to the Supreme Court to a claim of state rights by declining an attempt by the states to get in the way of a legitimate Federal activity (Luca, Miroff, Seidelman, Swanstrom, 2009). When Richard Nixon was elected the president back in 1969, he started supporting a revenue sharing plan that directed federal money back to the states, but this was not accompanied by the categorical grants. Today, the same issue of the proper balance between the state and national powers still exists and is feasible as it was back in 1789 (Luca, Miroff, Seidelman, Swanstrom, 2009). This issue has remained a controversial subject for more than 200 years and Americans are divided on what laws belong to the federal or national government and the ones that should be reserved for the States. Several questions shape the current debate over federal and state power. They include, should the subject of abortion be regulated by states or should the Federal government set a uniform law on the same? Should states consider allowing doctor-assisted suicide? Should individual states allow the use of Marijuana to cure diseases or is the whole drug policy supposed to be left in the hands of the Federal government (Zimmerman, 2008)? A very good example of how the debate has been so vibrant is the issue of the Civil War. The Civil war was fought as a result of whether states should have the right to defend the establishment of slavery. During the aftermath of the war, the endorsement of the 14th Amendment imposed critical restriction on the state rights to control the lives of people within its jurisdiction. However, during the 20th and 21st centuries, the Supreme Court turned again to overturn the rights of speakers, gun owners, and criminal defendants, and private property owners, members of racial and ethnic minorities among others. Today, cases that concern the rights of states against the federal government, are always decided by the Supreme Court (Zimmerman, 2008). Many state laws have been passed at the expense of the Federal government but the question which arises is; are such state laws legal and constitutional? For instance, The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), is supposed to regulate the all cases of immigration such as to curtail illegal migration, denying benefits to fake immigrants among others. This should be done constitutionally at the federal level. The Supreme Court overruled any attempt by the state government to deal with immigration cases. However, many states have defied the constitution. In the contemporary world, people have engaged in passing legislations that limit immigrants without proper documents access to public benefits as well as other legislations that affect the immigrants (Wilson, 2008).They cite lack of federal enforcement and security reasons as the main reasons they defy the constitution and act on behalf of the National government. This has caused a bigger debate and conflicts between the two governments. On many occasions, the Federal government has challenged a number of these laws through litigation cases. The debate of state rights versus national supremacy has undergone several changes up to today. The approval of the constitution established a union of states under the Federal government. This issue of creating the states instigated a very considerable debate from political analysts as well as from the citizens: What is the nature of the states? What kind of privileges, powers, duties and responsibilities does the constitution give to the Federal government as well as to the states and people? Over the past 200 years, the two issues have been debated overtime and have shaped the nation’s social, political and economic growth and development. The debate has undergone several changes (Luca, Miroff, Seidelman, Swanstrom, 2009): At the period of the pre-federalism, the country started a war for independence and began a confederation type of government that generated a group of sovereign states. Since there were many deficiencies in the provisions of the confederation, a new constitution was ratified creating of a full national government and states. Just soon after the adoption of the constitution, issues about sovereignty and the supremacy of the two forms of government were debated and this ultimately led to the Civil war (Wilson, 2008). The period between 1789 and 1901, which was termed as the Dual Federalism era, was characterized by very little cooperation and collaboration within state and federal governments. The two governments were fighting each other. The period between 1901 and 1960 was referred to as the Cooperative Federalism, which was characterized by strong collaboration between the two governments. This period was marked by the authorization of the national income tax together with the system of grant-in-aid in response to the many social and economic issues which were facing the nation at that time (Luca, Miroff, Seidelman, Swanstrom, 2009). The period between 1960 and 1968 was referred to as Creative Federalism and was orchestrated by the then president Lyndon Johnson. This program was termed by many scholars as an exodus from the past. It revised the power relationship between the two government levels and more power was shifted to the national government by increasing use of regulations and the extension of grant-in-aid system. The period from 1970 to date has been termed as the Contemporary federalism and has been portrayed by changes in the inter-governmental grant system, issues about federal regulations as well as continued disputes over the nature and type of the system of federalism (Zimmerman, 2008). During the time of George W. Bush as the president, the federal government was mostly concerned with issues like war and terrorism, but under the current administration of President Barrack Obama, things have started to shift. He has been involved nearly in every major domestic issue whereby he makes policies and leaves them to the states to implement them. For instance issues of immigration and climate change (Zimmerman, 2008). In conclusion, this debate has continued overtime and most likely, it will push forward with every new form of administration. States have continued violating the Federal law. For example, in 2014, voters from the states of Colorado and Washington voted and legalized marijuana in their states but the constitution states that marijuana is illegal under federal law. This will continue causing debates and conflicts within state and national government. References Luca, T., Miroff, B., Seidelman, R., & Swanstrom, T. (2009). The Democartic Debate: American Politics in an Age of Change. Boston: Cengage Learning. Wilson, W. (2008). Constitutional Government in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Wilson Press. Zimmerman, J., F. (2008): Contemporary American Federalism: The Growth of National Power, Second Edition. New York: SUNY Press. Read More