american federalism essay

The Federalist No. 1: Annotated

Alexander Hamilton’s anonymous essay challenged the voting citizens of New York to hold fast to the truth when deciding to ratify (or not) the US Constitution.

In May 1788, the second volume of what would come to be called The Federalist Papers , a collection of both new and previously printed essays written to sell the ratification of the US Constitution to “The People of the State of New York,” was published. Originally printed in newspapers in New York and elsewhere, The Federalist Papers are now foundational documents of American history and political thought.

Federalist No. 1, written by Alexander Hamilton using the pseudonym “Publius” , began as a response to two earlier essays written against the ratification (by “Cato” and “Brutus” respectively.) Hamilton proposed a series of writings “to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.” He was joined by James Madison and John Jay , ultimately producing eighty-five essays that are to this day used by scholars and Supreme Court justices alike to make their cases for the intent of the Constitution’s framers and its meanings.

Below is Hamilton’s opening salvo in the debate about the future of America: would it remain a confederation of states (as it had been under the Articles of Confederation ) or a new type of federalism, inspired by the Scottish Enlightenment, Montesquieu, and “Publius”? We have annotated the essay below, with scholarship on Constitutional history, the role The Federalist Papers continues to play in American legal and political life, and the style and rhetoric of the author(s). As always, these linked resources are free to read and download.

General Introduction

For the Independent Journal .

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government , you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world . It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force . If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government .

It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable—the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears . So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society . This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion . A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty ; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

Weekly Newsletter

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars:

THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY
THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION
THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT
THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT
ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly,
THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY.

In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State , and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system , and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole. * This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.

*The same idea, tracing the arguments to their consequences, is held out in several of the late publications against the new Constitution. [ Editor’s Note: this note appeared in the margins of the original source. ]

[Text taken from the US Library of Congress: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text ]

Support JSTOR Daily! Join our membership program on Patreon today.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

Get Our Newsletter

The Uneven Costs of Cross-Country Connectivity

Stirring sunken vats in the interior of a soap factory, 1771

A Potash Primer

Support JSTOR Daily

Subscribe Now

Foundations of U.S. Federalism

by Lee Rosenthal and Gregory P. Joseph

What precisely is American federalism? In their seminal work on federal jurisdiction, Felix Frankfurter and Wilber Katz allude to a “dynamic struggle” between federal and state power, the ebb and flow of competing, sometimes conflicting, spheres of federal and state power and influence. In many respects, the story of American government is the story of how that struggle has been resolved.

The antecedents of American federalism trace to colonial days, when the concept of divided sovereign power began to take shape. At the beginning of the Revolutionary War, the thirteen colonies declared themselves to be free and independent states. During the hostilities and at the War’s end, the newly formed states recognized that they needed to operate together to function adequately on the new national stage and to enter the world stage.

America’s first attempt to codify federalism — the Articles of Confederation of 1781 — failed. Replaced by the Constitution of 1787, this sturdy document and the government it established have survived the tenuous early days of the Republic, a Civil War, serious economic depressions, America’s involvement in two World Wars, and 227 years of innumerable internal and external challenges. This paper briefly outlines how American federalism developed and how it serves as the basic organizing principle of American government.

American Federalism: Prerevolutionary Underpinnings

Reflecting on America’s early political development, Alexis de Tocqueville commented that “[i]n America . . . it may be said that the township was organized before the county, the county before the state, the state before the union.” 1 America’s earliest political associations were forged at a local level. Early colonists found themselves separated from their sovereign’s authority and protection by a vast ocean and from their fellow colonists by a vast geographic expanse. As a consequence, they organized and largely governed their day-to-day lives independently and locally.

In 1643, the first American effort to create a political union among the colonies began in Boston. Faced with the need to defend and maintain security over a large territory — and with little hope of receiving aid from England due to the “sad distractions” of the English Civil War — the New England settlers found themselves “convinced . . . of the necessity of banding together to resist destruction. . . .” 2 Delegates from Massachusetts, New Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven formed the New England Confederation, “a firm and perpetual league of friendship and amity for offense and defense, mutual advice and succor upon all just occasions, both for preserving and propagating the truth and liberties of the Gospel and for their own mutual safety and welfare.” 3 Their union lasted four decades, until James II folded these colonies into the new Dominion of New England in 1684. 4

Approximately a century after forming the New England Confederation, the colonies again found the need to confederate due to mutual pressing concerns, including relations with Native Americans and each other and the possibility of a French attack. Representatives from the British North American Colonies adopted the Albany Plan of Union on July 10, 1754. The Plan provided that each colony would select members of a Grand Council and the British government would appoint a “president General.” 5 One of the most prominent Plan supporters was Benjamin Franklin. His well-known “Join, or Die” political sketch, first published in Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette on May 9, 1754, shows a snake cut into eight pieces. Each piece is labeled with the initials of one of the colonies, except that the four New England colonies are represented by “N.E.” at the snake’s head. 6 “Join, or Die” later became a rallying cry for the Revolutionary War and is perhaps the earliest pictorial representation of the nation’s budding federalism. Neither the New England Confederation nor the Albany Plan of Union sought to sever or even to weaken ties with England. To the contrary, Franklin hoped that the Albany Plan would increase the British participation in the colonies. “Britain and her Colonies should be considered as one Whole, and not as different States with separate Interests.” 7 The New England Confederation, and the Albany Plan of Union — even though it failed — formed precedent for the idea that the colonies could join together to pursue mutual interests, while simultaneously retaining individual power over day-to-day political activities.

The Impact of the Revolutionary War: An Impetus to Federalism and the Failure of the Articles of Confederation

The need for some degree of centralization among the various colonies became clear during the Revolutionary War. The demands of raising the army, putting it under a central command, supplying it, and raising funds for it exceeded state and local government capabilities. The revolutionaries recognized that some confederation was needed, but they remained deeply suspicious of centralized power. 8 The implications of failure were not lost on the revolutionaries. In 1775, Silas Dean wrote to Patrick Henry that, “[i]f a reconciliation with G Britain take place, it will be obtained on the best terms, by the Colonies being united, and be the more like to be preserved, on just and equal Terms; if no reconciliation is to be had without a Confederation We are ruined to all intents and purposes.” 9 The wartime urgency and the necessity of union, combined with the fear of a new overarching sovereign, led the revolutionaries to ratify the Articles of Confederation on March 1, 1781. The Articles left the states as the source of sovereign power but created a new central government with its powers derived from the consent of the states. 10

Americans were cautious in creating this new centralized government. “Whatever their collective commitments to new government, the revolutionaries were in no mood to issue blank checks in the form of another strong central government that could become as harmful as the one they fought to remove.” 11 The central government under the Articles was relatively feeble. The states delegated the central government limited powers and even more limited resources. That government was unable to levy taxes or regulate commerce and depended on the states for revenue; there was no executive and no independent judiciary; there were no standing land or sea forces; and any change to the Articles required the states’ unanimous vote. Exercising the limited powers the new government did have, including making treaties and coining money, often required a majority or supermajority vote.

Postrevolutionary Needs

The Articles proved unworkable. Disputes among states were difficult to resolve, and the central government was underfunded and unable to compel delinquent states to pay their shares of common expenditures. By 1784, a disagreement over the use of the Potomac River highlighted these problems:

First, all the other States were asked to agree to send delegates to the meeting, and all the States hardly ever agreed to do anything; second, if the meeting did take place it must agree upon a report to the States, and there was no reason to expect greater harmony in this assemblage than there was in the Continental Congress, where discord reigned; third, if a plan should be agreed upon, under the terms of the call of the meeting every State must accept it before it could become effective, and it seemed preposterous to expect such unanimity from such antagonistic elements. But affairs were rushing to a crisis, and it was clear that something must be done to save the Union from disintegration and America from disgrace. Far-seeing men began seriously to apprehend that soon the people who had won a glorious victory against Great Britain would fall back under the yoke of that or some other foreign power. The most dangerous and demoralizing inclinations of weak human nature were becoming more and more in the ascendancy in the State governments — a tendency to pass law by which the fulfillment of contracts might be avoided, to stamp paper with figures and promises and call it money, to repudiate debts and avoid obligations of honest men. 12 The challenge was to preserve state sovereignty within a national polity that could operate on a world stage, resolve interstate differences, and facilitate common interests. Fears that a central government would accumulate too much power and erode state sovereignty persisted, along with the fear that no central authority could govern such a huge expanse of territory.

The solution the Framers posited and the states adopted was the federalism embodied in the Constitution. “The Framers split the atom of sovereignty. The genius of their idea was that American citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other.” 13 One scholar has described this federalism “as a new-modeled creation cobbled together out of a mix of necessity (the existence of the states) and theory (the belief that republics could not be easily maintained across a large territory).” 14 The basic structural characteristics of this “more perfect union” formed the basis of the system of American government that continues to the present.

Developing “A More Perfect Union”

Between May and September of 1787, the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia to address and try to remedy the failures of the Articles of Confederation. Although the word “federalism” appears nowhere in the Constitution, it pervades the structure of the government the document creates.

Article I, Section 8 specifically enumerates the powers of Congress. At the time of the founding, there was little controversy that many of these powers were best suited for national regulation, including the power to provide for a common defense, declare war, raise an army and maintain a navy, regulate naturalization, coin money, regulate international commerce, and punish piracy and violations of international law. 15 Other powers in Article I, Section 8, however, have proved controversial and have been interpreted to permit the expansion of the federal government and restrictions on powers of the states. The Commerce Clause, which empowers Congress to “regulate commerce . . . among the several states . . . ,” 16 is among the most controversial. “Commerce” can be read restrictively, to refer to a category of activities distinct from, for example, manufacturing, farming, or mining, preventing the federal government from using the Commerce Clause to regulate these and similar activities. This narrow reading is consistent with the Supreme Court’s interpretation for the first century after ratification, and with current scholarship on the original meaning of the Clause. 17 The Commerce Clause can also be, and has been, read to allow Congress to regulate any activity that in the aggregate has an effect on a national market, even if the conduct is purely intrastate. 18 The Constitution’s Taxation Clause, which provides Congress with the power to tax and spend to “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States,” 19 similarly has been “controversial since it first saw the light of day.” 20 Does this phrase mean that Congress can spend only in connection with the powers otherwise granted to Congress or for any good purpose? Does it permit Congress to regulate through spending? These questions have been the subject of heated debate, 21 and the answers have had a substantial impact on the balance of federal and state power. 22

Finally, the Necessary and Proper Clause, which grants Congress the power to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” its other enumerated powers, 23 has profound federalism implications, depending on how broadly or narrowly the term “necessary” is interpreted. 24 In addition to Article I, Section 8, other parts of the Constitution provide key features of the federalist system. Article I, Section 10 prohibits states from regulating in certain areas. Article VI makes the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . and all Treaties made . . . the supreme Law of the Land.” Under the constitutional structure, all powers the Constitution neither delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or to the people. This structure was later made explicit in the Tenth Amendment.

In their Federalist Papers , Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay promoted state ratification of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 9, Hamilton attempted to assuage the concerns that the states would lose sovereignty under the new Constitution:

So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished . . . though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty . . . and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. 25

In Federalist No. 51, Hamilton argued that federalism would help limit the ability of the proposed new central government to abuse its powers:

In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. 26 The Federalist Papers repeatedly address concerns that the proposed federal government would run roughshod over the states. 27 Federalist No. 39 focused on the limited powers of the federal government and the continuing sovereignty of the states:

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution. . . .

[T]he proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. . . . Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact . . . . 28 Federalist No. 39 maintained that there must be some arbiter to resolve disputes among the states and that this limited sacrifice of state sovereignty was preferable to resolution by “the sword and a dissolution of the compact.” Equally noteworthy is the distinction drawn between a national and federal government, the former indicative of a boundless overarching power, the latter representing a government of limited enumerated powers.

While the Federalist Papers emphasized that the states retained their sovereignty, the authors stressed that some limits on state sovereignty were essential for the welfare of the American people:

[I]f, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? 29

There was fervent opposition to the federalism built into the Constitution. Robert Yates and John Lansing, New York’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention, wrote to New York Governor George Clinton on Dec. 21, 1787, that, in addition to lacking authority to consider the idea of a new government, a central authority would also oppress faraway citizens:

[W]e entertained an opinion that a general government, however guarded by declarations of rights, or cautionary provisions, must unavoidably, in a short time, be productive of the destruction of the civil liberty of such citizens who could be effectually coerced by it, by reason of the extensive territory of the United States, the dispersed situation of its inhabitants, and the insuperable difficulty of controlling or counteracting the views of a set of men (however unconstitutional and oppressive their acts might be) possessed of all the powers of government, and who, from their remoteness from their constituents, and necessary permanency of office, could not be supposed to be uniformly actuated by an attention to their welfare and happiness . . . . 30

They were also concerned that “the expense of supporting” the new government “would become intolerably burdensome” and that many citizens would be “necessarily . . . unknown” to the national representatives given the size of the new country. 31

The antifederalists were well aware that the stakes were high:

If the constitution, offered to your acceptance, be a wise one, calculated to preserve the invaluable blessings of liberty, to secure the inestimable rights of mankind, and promote human happiness, then, if you accept it, you will lay a lasting foundation of happiness for millions yet unborn; generations to come will rise up and call you blessed. . . . But if, on the other hand, this form of government contains principles that will lead to the subversion of liberty — if it tends to establish a despotism, or, what is worse, a tyrannic aristocracy; then, if you adopt it, this only remaining asylum for liberty will be shut up, and posterity will execrate your memory. 32

Many antifederalists, fearful of a powerful central government, demanded a Bill of Rights, which, in 1791, became the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

The Ninth Amendment states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Writing in 1833, Justice Joseph Story noted that the Ninth Amendment “was manifestly introduced to prevent any perverse, or ingenious misapplication of the well known maxim, that an affirmation in particular cases implies a negation in all others . . . .” 33 The Tenth Amendment reads: “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.” The Tenth Amendment made explicit that “what is not conferred, is withheld, and belongs to the state authorities, if invested by their constitutions of government respectively in them; and if not so invested, it is retained BY THE PEOPLE, as a part of their residuary sovereignty.” 34

On June 21, 1788, the ninth state, New Hampshire, ratified the Constitution, and it became effective. 35 According to one scholarly view, federalism was “the greatest of American contributions to the art of government.” 36 Alexis de Tocqueville celebrated this singular achievement: “This Constitution . . . rests upon a novel theory, which may be considered as a great invention in modern political science . . . . [A] form of government has been found out which is neither exactly national nor federal . . . . [T]he new word which will one day designate this novel invention does not yet exist.” 37

Federalism In Practice: The Early Precedents

The federal courts quickly became the arbiter of federalism, defining the relative powers of the federal and state governments. In 1810, the Supreme Court, then a young institution still establishing its authority, ruled in Fletcher v. Peck 38 that Georgia’s legislature could not invalidate a contract because the federal Constitution did not permit bills of attainder or ex post facto laws. Chief Justice John Marshall carefully noted that the Court did not intend any “disrespect of the legislature of Georgia, or of its acts.” 39 Despite this deferential tone, Fletcher v. Peck established the principle that the Supreme Court has the power to strike down an unconstitutional state law.

In 1816, the Supreme Court ruled that it could also override state courts in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee . 40 Four years earlier, the Supreme Court had ruled in Fairfax’s Devisee v. Hunter’s Lessee 41 that the Jay Treaty between the United States and Britain precluded Virginia from appropriating the property of a loyalist. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that it was not bound by the Supreme Court’s ruling, stating: “The court is unanimously of opinion, that the appellate power of the supreme court of the United States does not extend to this court . . . .” 42 In Martin , the Supreme Court reemphasized that it walked carefully when it reviewed state-court judgments. “The great respectability, too, of the court whose decisions we are called upon to review, and the entire deference which we entertain for the learning and ability of that court, add much to the difficulty of the task which has so unwelcomely fallen upon us.” 43 The Supreme Court again balanced this respect and deference with the recognition that “[t] he constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the constitution declares, by ‘the people of the United States.’” 44 The Supreme Court ruled that state courts were subject to its appellate jurisdiction on constitutional matters. By 1816, the Supreme Court had declared that it could overrule state courts and invalidate unconstitutional state laws.

That same year, Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States, a private corporation that handled all fiscal transactions for the federal government. Two years later, Maryland passed legislation to impose a tax on the Bank, which Bank employee James M’Culloch refused to pay. The Maryland state courts upheld the legality of the tax. In M’Culloch v. Maryland , 45 the Supreme Court made two critical rulings. First, it declared that the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution granted Congress discretion in choosing the means by which to execute its enumerated powers: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adopted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” 46 Despite the absence of an enumerated power to incorporate, the Supreme Court held that creating the Bank was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 as “necessary and proper” to carry out Congress’s other enumerated powers. Second, the Court concluded that while Article I, Section 8 gave Congress the power to create the Bank, Article VI’s Supremacy Clause meant that Maryland lacked the power to tax that Bank. “The government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action . . . and its laws, when made in pursuance of the constitution, form the supreme law of the land.” 47

In 1824, one of the most significant cases on congressional powers came before the Supreme Court. Gibbons v. Ogden 48 involved competing steamboat ferry owners whose vessels operated in the waters between New York and New Jersey. Ogden obtained an exclusive license from the State of New York authorizing him to operate along the contested route and sought an injunction to stop Gibbons from operating along the same route. In response, Gibbons argued that a 1793 act of Congress regulating coastal commerce allowed him to compete with Ogden. He lost in the trial and appellate courts in New York, but the Supreme Court reversed. The Court’s decision for Gibbons rested on its first interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which provides that “Congress shall have power . . . [t]o regulate commerce . . . among the several States . . . .” 49

The Court found that the word “commerce” included navigation among the states, and the word “among” before the phrase “the several States” meant that Congress’s commerce power did not “stop at the external boundary line of each State, but may be introduced into the interior.” 50 The New York law granting Ogden an exclusive license was a “nullity” in light of Congress’s conflicting act and the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. 51 Gibbons significantly expanded the authority of the federal government by recognizing Congress’s broad power to regulate commercial activity. By the Civil War, the federal courts had established several key principles of federalism, including the power of federal courts to invalidate unconstitutional state laws, to nullify conflicting state-court rulings, and to ensure the supremacy of federal law enacted within the enumerated powers the Constitution delegated to the federal government. Nonetheless, during this period, the federal government remained small and had little impact on the lives of most citizens. Most Americans identified more with their states than with the nation.

The Civil War and Reconstruction

Civil war: federalism in crisis.

The Civil War threatened the survival of the American experiment. Could states legitimately claim a right to secede from the nation? President Lincoln vehemently opposed the idea. “Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy.” 52 There was the bond of geography: “Physically speaking, we cannot separate.” 53 And there was the bond of the constitution itself: “[N]o State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union.” 54 Secessionists strongly disagreed. Future Confederate President Jefferson Davis, announcing his departure from the United States Senate following Mississippi’s decision to secede, declared: “I have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of State sovereignty, the right of a State to secede from the Union.” 55

He explained:

Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever. 56

The South’s defeat in the Civil War greatly expanded the power of the federal government and “destroyed the doctrine that the Constitution was a compact among sovereign states, each with the right to interpose or nullify an act of Congress, and each with the ultimate right to secede legally from the Union.” 57 Under modern conceptions of federalism, states retain sovereignty. The Civil War, however, removed any doubt that the federal government — which derives its sovereign power from “the People,” not the states — is supreme when acting within the scope of its enumerated powers. “The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals, and for other constitutional ends.” 58

Post Civil War: Reconstructing Federalism

When the Civil War ended, the country entered “Reconstruction,” a period that included rebuilding the roles of the federal and state governments. There was significant disagreement in the country about how to treat the former Confederate states, implicating whether the basic relationship between the federal and state governments that existed before the War was to be restored, or whether it was necessary to make fundamental alternations in that relationship to prevent the continuation of the causes of the conflict.

Ultimately, three constitutional amendments, commonly referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments, were ratified in the five years after the Civil War ended, altering the balance of federalism in America. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery 59 and the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed African Americans the right to vote. 60 The Fourteenth Amendment imposed substantial restrictions on state power and expanded the power of the federal government. 61

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which overruled the Supreme Court’s 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford 62 holding that African Americans were not entitled to any of the rights of citizenship, provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside” and prohibits states from passing any law that abridges “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” 63 The breadth and meaning of the phrase “privileges or immunities” remains uncertain. One theory is that the phrase was intended to be limited to certain natural rights, such as property ownership. Others argue that the phrase was intended to extend to all positive law, whether provided by state law or the Bill of Rights. 64 However, “the standard view of the effect intended by the drafters of the Privileges or Immunities Clause seems to be that it ‘has been a mystery since its adoption.’” 65

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits the states from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” or “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 66 The Due Process Clause has since been interpreted to incorporate almost all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights against the states, 67 and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses have since been interpreted to restrict or bar state regulation in diverse areas, including contraception, 68 abortion, 69 and same-sex marriage. 70 Significantly, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, providing a potentially broad grant of federal power.

The restriction of state sovereignty was a principal basis for the opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment, as reflected in a published letter of Interior Secretary Orville Browning that President Andrew Johnson — a Reconstruction opponent — reportedly approved:

The object and purpose are manifest. It is to subordinate the State judiciaries in all things to Federal supervision and control; to totally annihilate the independence and sovereignty of State judiciaries in the administration of State laws, and the authority and control of the States over matters of purely domestic and local concern. . . . [I]f adopted, every matter of judicial investigation, civil or criminal, however insignificant, may be drawn into the vortex of the Federal judiciary. 71

Supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment found Browning’s attack to be little more than the same states’ rights argument that had led to, and been defeated by the Union’s victory in, the Civil War:

In a few words the great fear of Mr. Browning is that this amendment in its operation will do away with State sovereignty, legislative and judicial, and will put the legislatures and courts of the several States under Congress and the federal courts . . . . We hold that this old Southern theory of our government was demolished at Petersburg and surrendered at Appomattox Court House with Lee’s army; and so we dismiss this branch of the argument. 72 The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in July 1868. By 1870, however, support for a very strong version of Reconstruction had begun to wane. As part of this trend, the Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the Privileges or Immunities Clause when it first addressed the Fourteenth Amendment in the Slaughter-House Cases . 73 These cases concerned a Louisiana law permitting only one slaughterhouse in the New Orleans area, ostensibly to promote health and safety. Competing butchers were allowed to slaughter, but only at the approved slaughterhouse. Critics contended that the state law unconstitutionally deprived the other butchers of the “privilege” of practicing their profession, violating their “privileges or immunities” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protected the privileges of United States citizenship but did not require the states to grant its citizens any particular privileges. The Court stressed that it considered these questions as vital to federalism and therefore to the nation:

No questions so far-reaching and pervading in their consequences, so profoundly interesting to the people of this country, and so important in their bearing upon the relations of the United States, and of the several States to each other and to the citizens of the States and of the United States, have been before this court during the official life of any of its present members. 74 The Court analyzed the historical underpinnings of the Fourteenth Amendment, emphasizing the “pervading purpose” of the Reconstruction Amendments as freeing the slaves, securing that freedom, and protecting the new freemen from oppression. The Court refused to interpret the Privileges or Immunities Clause as a dramatic general reworking of the federal-state balance:

The adoption of the first eleven amendments to the Constitution so soon after the original instrument was accepted, shows a prevailing sense of danger at that time from the Federal power. And it cannot be denied that such a jealousy continued to exist with many patriotic men until the breaking out of the late civil war. It was then discovered that the true danger to the perpetuity of the Union was in the capacity of the State organizations to combine and concentrate all the powers of the State, and of contiguous States, for a determined resistance to the General Government.

Unquestionably this has given great force to the argument, and added largely to the number of those who believe in the necessity of a strong National government. But, however pervading this sentiment, and however it may have contributed to the adoption of the amendments we have been considering, we do not see in those amendments any purpose to destroy the main features of the general system. Under the pressure of all the excited feeling growing out of the war, our statesmen have still believed that the existence of the State with powers for domestic and local government, including the regulation of civil rights — the rights of person and of property — was essential to the perfect working of our complex form of government, though they have thought proper to impose additional limitations on the States, and to confer additional power on that of the Nation.

But whatever fluctuations may be seen in the history of public opinion on this subject during the period of our national existence, we think it will be found that this court, so far as its functions required, has always held with a steady and an even hand the balance between State and Federal power, and we trust that such may continue to be the history of its relation to that subject so long as it shall have duties to perform which demand of it a construction of the Constitution, or of any of its parts. 75 The Equal Protection Clause of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was effectively nullified when the Supreme Court ruled in 1896 that “separate, but equal facilities” were constitutional in Plessy v. Ferguson , authorizing state-sanctioned segregation. 76 It was not until 1954 that the Supreme Court reversed that decision in Brown v. Board of Education , ruling that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” 77

Progressive Era: Federalism Grows

Rapid industrialization in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries raised a variety of economic and social issues that in turn produced a series of political reforms. This period has been described as characterized by a “growing conviction that government at all levels ought to intervene in the socioeconomic order to enact antitrust and regulatory legislation, labor and welfare measures, and tax reform.” 78 The nation adopted several constitutional amendments, including the Sixteenth, which authorized direct federal income taxes, and the Seventeenth, which provided for the citizens in each state to elect their senators directly rather than through their state legislatures. Federal power continued to expand and become entrenched.

The Sixteenth Amendment: Taxation

The Sixteenth Amendment, ratified on Feb. 3, 1913, is considered the first Progressive Era constitutional amendment. In 1895, in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company , 79 the Supreme Court had invalidated a federal income tax as an unconstitutional direct tax because it was not apportioned to the states based on their respective populations. The Sixteenth Amendment overturned this ruling. 80 Some opponents saw this as a federal “power grab” designed to further weaken the states:

A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man’s business; the eye of the federal inspector will be in every man’s counting house. . . . An army of Federal inspectors, spies and detectives will descend upon the state. . . . I do not hesitate to say that the adoption of this amendment will be such a surrender to imperialism that has not been since the Northern states in their blindness forced the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments upon the entire sisterhood of the Commonwealth. 81 Following the Sixteenth Amendment, the federal government began using its expanded resources to pass legislation approving federal funding for social welfare programs, including the 1921 Sheppard Towner Act to fund child and maternity care, described as the “first venture of the federal government into social security legislation.” 82 Over time, the Sixteenth Amendment significantly impacted the balance of federal-state power. Together with an expansive interpretation of the congressional spending power, the taxing power permitted the substantial growth of the federal government in myriad areas it previously had not occupied or regulated.

The Seventeenth Amendment: Direct Election of Senators

The Seventeenth Amendment, adopted on May 31, 1913, provided for the voters of each state to elect their Senators directly, rather than having state legislatures select them. This abrogated one of the original, fundamental structural protections for the states by affording direct state influence over the operations of the federal government.

Incorporating the Bill of Rights

The Reconstruction Amendments profoundly impacted the federal-state balance by applying the Bill of Rights through the Fourteenth Amendment (“incorporating” the Bill of Rights in the Fourteenth Amendment) to limit or invalidate state action. Before the Civil War, the Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. In 1833 the Supreme Court ruled in Barron v. City of Baltimore 83 that the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment prohibition against government confiscation of property without just compensation was a limit only on the power of the federal government. “Had the people of the several States, or any of them, required changes in their Constitutions; had they required additional safeguards to liberty from the apprehended encroachments of their particular governments; the remedy was in their own hands, and could have been applied by themselves.” 84 Years after the Civil War, in 1875, the Court ruled that the First Amendment right to free assembly and the Second Amendment right to bear arms did not apply to the states. 85

In so holding, the Court emphasized the existence of more than one sovereign in the federal system:

We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. 86

This changed over time, as the Supreme Court slowly applied specific protections afforded by the Bill of Rights to the states. The Court relied on the commandment in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause that no state may “deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” In 1925, the Supreme Court used the Clause to apply the First Amendment to the states. In Gitlow v. New York , 87 the Court stated: “For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press — which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress — are among the fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.” 88 In 1931, the Supreme Court relied on the Clause to remove any doubt that the First Amendment rights of freedom of the press applied to the states 89 and, in another case, to recognize that a defendant’s right to legal representation in capital cases applied to the states. 90 As recently as 2010, the Court recognized that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, restricting the states’ ability to regulate gun ownership. 91

Expanding Federal Power: The New Deal

After his election in 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt initiated a series of economic and regulatory programs to address the Great Depression. Congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act, authorizing the promulgation of fair competition codes. The Roosevelt administration adopted a series of these codes, including one governing the poultry industry. That led to the Schechter Poultry Corporation case, invalidating the legislation as exceeding constitutional limits on federal powers.

The Schechter Poultry Corporation was charged with violating the Live Poultry Code. Schechter sued, claiming that the federal government had exceeded its authority by issuing the code. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that Article I of the Constitution vested the Congress, not the President, with the power to legislate, and the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutionally authorized the President to do so. The Court also held that the Code regulated intrastate commerce, making the Code unconstitutional because the Commerce Clause authorized Congress to regulate only interstate commerce. 92 Between 1933 and 1936, the Supreme Court invalidated other pieces of New Deal legislation. In 1936, buoyed by his landslide reelection, President Roosevelt proposed a plan that would reshape the Court, allowing him to select additional justices who would approve his policies. Dubbed “court packing” by his critics, his plan was opposed even by some of his fervent supporters. It was never enacted, in part because the Supreme Court began approving Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation. 93 A series of decisions gradually recognized the Commerce Clause as providing constitutional authorization for expanding federal government power.

In 1937, the Supreme Court ruled in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation 94 that Congress may regulate isolated economic activities, like labor relations, under the Commerce Clause, because that activity has a “close and substantial relationship” to interstate commerce. In United States v. Darby , 95 the Court found the Fair Labor Standards Act constitutional under the Commerce Clause, barring states from enacting lower standards to obtain a commercial advantage over other states. In Wickard v. Filburn , 96 the Supreme Court declared that the Commerce Clause empowered federal regulation of wheat grown by a farmer for his own use, on his own farm, that never crossed state lines, because of its effect on interstate commerce. “A new era of judicial construction had been launched” and “[a]reas of authoritative action that previously had been left to the states’ sphere of sovereignty or to the private sector now fell within the powers of Congress.” 97

Federalism Today

How America interprets the balance of federal and state power has changed over two hundred years. Those changes reflect, and helped us survive, challenges that almost destroyed the nation. How best to strike that balance continues to pervade critical aspects of modern American government, including healthcare, race, civil liberties, the environment, and foreign policy. 98 Federalism also directly affects tax policy, 99 elections, 100 and domestic relations. 101 Yet more than 200 years after the nation’s founding, fundamental questions implicating federalism remain unsettled. That is nowhere more apparent than in the Supreme Court’s June 2015 decision on same-sex marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges . 102

Historically, the view had been that “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the States and not the laws of the United States.” 103 Over time, Supreme Court decisions began to recognize limitations on the states’ traditional power to regulate marriage. In Loving v. Virginia , 104 for example, the Supreme Court applied the Fourteenth Amendment to overturn a Virginia prohibition on interracial marriage. In Kirchberg v. Feenstra , 105 the Court similarly applied the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down state laws deeming the husband “head and master” of the household.

The Supreme Court initially declined to apply Fourteenth Amendment principles to state restrictions on same-sex marriage. The first time the Supreme Court addressed same-sex marriage, it issued a “one-line summary decision . . . in 1972, holding the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question.” 106 As recently as two years ago, in United States v. Windsor , 107 the Supreme Court relied on the states’ primacy in domestic relations to strike down a congressional attempt to define marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” for purposes of federal statutory law. 108 This year, however, the Court held in Obergefell that “the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.” 109 The definition of marriage is no longer the exclusive province of the states. 110 Recent jurisprudence under the Second Amendment, addressing the right to bear arms, presents another example of the fluid nature of American federalism. For years, states were thought to have virtually unbridled authority to regulate the ownership, possession and use of firearms within their borders. That understanding changed dramatically in a short period. In 2008, the Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller 111 that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms, precluding the District of Columbia from banning handguns in the home and requiring firearms to be kept inoperable at all times. Subsequently, in McDonald v. City of Chicago , 112 the Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the doctrine of incorporation. Together, Heller and McDonald dramatically altered firearms regulation by prohibiting the states from banning handgun possession outright, and by circumscribing the states’ ability to regulate firearms to an extent that remains to be determined.

In addition to these examples, Commerce Clause jurisprudence continues to present a source of contested but expansive federal power, with uncertain scope. In 2000, for example, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Morrison 113 that the federal Violence Against Women Act’s civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause. By contrast, in 2005, the Court concluded in Gonzales v. Raich 114 that federal criminalization of intrastate marijuana growers and users did not violate the Commerce Clause. Perhaps most notably, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius , 115 the Court held that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was constitutional under Congress’s power to tax, but was not a proper use of the Commerce Clause power because although the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, it cannot compel it. 116 Recent interpretations of the Supremacy Clause also illustrate some of the shifting contours of federalism. Under the preemption doctrine, when Congress acts within the scope of its enumerated powers, or a federal agency acts within the scope of its statutory mandate, their action may preempt conflicting state laws or, if federal action is sufficiently pervasive, may even bar state regulation within that field. 117 Over the past decade, state laws have been held preempted under this doctrine in such divergent areas as aviation, 118 food and drug regulation, 119 immigration, 120 trucking 121 and locomotive equipment, 122 arbitration agreements, 123 regulation of emissions, 124 state age-verification requirements for the shipment and delivery of tobacco, 125 and even the treatment and processing nonambulatory animals in a slaughterhouse. 126 At the same time, preemption has been denied in multiple other contexts. 127

As this discussion suggests, the only safe prediction about the future of American federalism is that none can be made with certainty. But while the interpretation of the balance of federal and state power has changed from the colonial period to the present, federalism continues to be a foundational principle defining America and a principal tool used to build its government.

The Supreme Court continues to look to the Framers for guidance in resolving important questions raising federalism issues or implicating federalism concerns. In District of Columbia v. Heller , 128 for example, the Court noted that “[d]uring the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric.” 129 The Court echoed the concerns America’s founders had over 200 years ago about the danger to democracy posed by the new federal government. “But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right — unlike some other English rights — was codified in a written Constitution.” 130

As the nation has grown and become established, so have both federal and state power. That path has been neither smooth nor linear. Dispute and even armed conflict have marked the way. But throughout, the Constitution has served as the source of federal and state government powers and their limits. The courts continue to be the first, and often last, arbiters of the struggle to define both. That has worked so far, although far from perfectly or, at times, even well. But no one has devised an alternative approach, much less a better way.

The problems of federalism, like many aspects of the work judges across legal systems confront, are real. A great judge and legal scholar, Benjamin Kaplan of Massachusetts, described one aspect of why judges’ work is so difficult and so compelling. Rules and principles, however long established and seemingly clear, cannot “solve [the] problems fully and forever. If the problems are real ones, they can never be solved. We are merely under the duty of trying continually to solve them.” 131

The judiciary has many grave responsibilities. Shaping and protecting federalism continue to be among the most important and enduring of those obligations. It is a responsibility and a joy that we in the United States and the United Kingdom share.

Also In This Edition

Table of Contents
Judicial Honors (Spring 2017)
A Model Trial Judge: U.S. District Judge Sim Lake
Cain questions court funding, highlights best practices for proportionality
Saving Our Profession: It’s Up to Us
Judicial Excellence after Earl Warren
Why We Read the Scalia Opinion First
Rebuild our Courts: State Chief Justices Call for Action to Achieve Civil Justice for All
Mindfulness and Judging
#Engage: It’s Time for Judges to Tweet, Like, & Share
A Speech Code for Lawyers?
Hold the Parentheticals, Please
Picking Judges: How Judicial-Selection Methods Affect Diversity in State Appellate Courts
National Security. Civil Liberties. Can We Have Both?
Lastly: A Judge Honors the Activist Who Brought Her to Jail
As I See It: Updates from the Center for Judicial Studies
Salary by Committee
Editor’s Note: Relentlessly Relevant

About Lee Rosenthal

Lee Rosenthal is chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. She serves as vice president of the American Law Institute and as a member of the Bolch Judicial Institute Advisory Board.

About Gregory P. Joseph

Gregory P. Joseph, partner at Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC, is a past president of the American College of Trial Lawyers; former chair of the American Bar Association Section of Litigation; and a former member of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence.

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Course: US history > Unit 3

The Articles of Confederation
What was the Articles of Confederation?
Shays's Rebellion
The Constitutional Convention
The US Constitution

The Federalist Papers

The Bill of Rights
Social consequences of revolutionary ideals
The presidency of George Washington
Why was George Washington the first president?
The presidency of John Adams
Regional attitudes about slavery, 1754-1800
Continuity and change in American society, 1754-1800
Creating a nation

The Federalist Papers was a collection of essays written by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton in 1788.
The essays urged the ratification of the United States Constitution, which had been debated and drafted at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787.
The Federalist Papers is considered one of the most significant American contributions to the field of political philosophy and theory and is still widely considered to be the most authoritative source for determining the original intent of the framers of the US Constitution.

The Articles of Confederation and Constitutional Convention

In Federalist No. 10 , Madison reflects on how to prevent rule by majority faction and advocates the expansion of the United States into a large, commercial republic.
In Federalist No. 39 and Federalist 51 , Madison seeks to “lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty,” emphasizing the need for checks and balances through the separation of powers into three branches of the federal government and the division of powers between the federal government and the states. 4 ‍
In Federalist No. 84 , Hamilton advances the case against the Bill of Rights, expressing the fear that explicitly enumerated rights could too easily be construed as comprising the only rights to which American citizens were entitled.

What do you think?

For more on Shays’s Rebellion, see Leonard L. Richards, Shays’s Rebellion: The American Revolution’s Final Battle (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002).
Bernard Bailyn, ed. The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification; Part One, September 1787 – February 1788 (New York: Penguin Books, 1993).
See Federalist No. 1 .
See Federalist No. 51 .
For more, see Michael Meyerson, Liberty’s Blueprint: How Madison and Hamilton Wrote the Federalist Papers, Defined the Constitution, and Made Democracy Safe for the World (New York: Basic Books, 2008).

Want to join the conversation?

Upvote Button navigates to signup page
Downvote Button navigates to signup page
Flag Button navigates to signup page

Library of Congress
Research Guides
Main Reading Room

Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History

Full text of the federalist papers.

Introduction
Federalist Nos. 1-10
Federalist Nos. 11-20
Federalist Nos. 21-30
Federalist Nos. 31-40
Federalist Nos. 41-50
Federalist Nos. 51-60
Federalist Nos. 61-70
Federalist Nos. 71-80
Federalist Nos. 81-85
Related Digital Resources
External Websites
Print Resources

History, Humanities & Social Sciences : Ask a Librarian

Have a question? Need assistance? Use our online form to ask a librarian for help.

Chat with a librarian , Monday through Friday, 12-4pm Eastern Time (except Federal Holidays).

The Federalist , commonly referred to as the Federalist Papers, is a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788. The essays were published anonymously, under the pen name "Publius," in various New York state newspapers of the time.

The Federalist Papers were written and published to urge New Yorkers to ratify the proposed United States Constitution, which was drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. In lobbying for adoption of the Constitution over the existing Articles of Confederation, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. For this reason, and because Hamilton and Madison were each members of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers are often used today to help interpret the intentions of those drafting the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers were published primarily in two New York state newspapers: The New York Packet and The Independent Journal . They were reprinted in other newspapers in New York state and in several cities in other states. A bound edition, with revisions and corrections by Hamilton, was published in 1788 by printers J. and A. McLean. An edition published by printer Jacob Gideon in 1818, with revisions and corrections by Madison, was the first to identify each essay by its author's name. Because of its publishing history, the assignment of authorship, numbering, and exact wording may vary with different editions of The Federalist .

The electronic text of The Federalist used here was compiled for Project Gutenberg by scholars who drew on many available versions of the papers.

One printed edition of the text is The Federalist , edited by Jacob E. Cooke (Middletown, Conn., Wesleyan University Press, 1961). Cooke's introduction provides background information on the printing history of The Federalist; the information provided above comes in part from his work.

This web-friendly presentation of the original text of the Federalist Papers (also known as The Federalist) was obtained from the e-text archives of Project Gutenberg. Any irregularities with regard to grammar, syntax, spelling, or punctuation are as they exist in the original e-text archives.

No.	Author	Publication	Date
1.	Hamilton	For the	--
2.	Jay	For the	--
3.	Jay	For the	--
4.	Jay	For the	--
5.	Jay	For the	--
6.	Hamilton	For the	--
7.	Hamilton	For the	--
8.	Hamilton	From the	Tuesday, November 20, 1787
9.	Hamilton	For the	--
10.	Madison	Frm the	Friday, November 27, 1787
11.	Hamilton	For the	--
12.	Hamilton	From the	Tuesday, November 27, 1787
13.	Hamilton	For the	--
14.	Madison	From the	Friday, November 30, 1787
15.	Hamilton	For the	--
16.	Hamilton	From the	Tuesday, December 4, 1787
17.	Hamilton	For the	--
18.	Hamilton and Madison	For the	--
19.	Hamilton and Madison	For the	--
20.	Hamilton and Madison	From the	Tuesday, December 11, 1787
21.	Hamilton	For the	--
22.	Hamilton	From the	Friday, December 14, 1787
23.	Hamilton	From the	Tuesday, December 17, 1787
24.	Hamilton	For the	--
25.	Hamilton	From the	Friday, December 21, 1787
26.	Hamilton	For the	--
27.	Hamilton	From the	Tuesday, December 25, 1787
28.	Hamilton	For the	--
29.	Hamilton	From the	Thursday, January 10, 1788
30.	Hamilton	From the	Friday, December 28, 1787
31.	Hamilton	From the	Tuesday, January 1, 1788
32.	Hamilton	From the	Thursday, January 3, 1788
33.	Hamilton	From the	Thursday, January 3, 1788
34.	Hamilton	From the	Friday, January 4, 1788
35.	Hamilton	For the	--
36.	Hamilton	From the	Tuesday, January 8, 1788
37.	Madison	From the	Friday, January 11, 1788
38.	Madison	From the	Tuesday, January 15, 1788
39.	Madison	For the	--
40.	Madison	From the	Friday, January 18, 1788
41.	Madison	For the	--
42.	Madison	From the	Tuesday, January 22, 1788
43.	Madison	For the	--
44.	Madison	From the	Friday, January 25, 1788
45.	Madison	For the	--
46.	Madison	From the	Tuesday, January 29, 1788
47.	Madison	From the	Friday, February 1, 1788
48.	Madison	From the	Friday, February 1, 1788
49.	Hamilton or Madison	From the	Tuesday, February 5, 1788
50.	Hamilton or Madison	From the	Tuesday, February 5, 1788
51.	Hamilton or Madison	From the	Friday, February 8, 1788
52.	Hamilton or Madison	From the	Friday, February 8, 1788
53.	Hamilton or Madison	From the	Tuesday, February 12, 1788
54.	Hamilton or Madison	From the	Tuesday, February 12, 1788
55.	Hamilton or Madison	From the	Friday, February 15, 1788
56.	Hamilton or Madison	From the	Tuesday, February 19, 1788
57.	Hamilton or Madison	From the	Tuesday, February 19, 1788
58.	Madison	--	--
59.	Hamilton	From the	Friday, February 22, 1788
60.	Hamilton	From the	Tuesday, February 26, 1788
61.	Hamilton	From the	Tuesday, February 26, 1788
62.	Hamilton or Madison	For the	--
63.	Hamilton or Madison	For the	--
64.	Jay	From the	Friday, March 7, 1788
65.	Hamilton	From the	Friday, March 7, 1788
66.	Hamilton	From the	Tuesday, March 11, 1788
67.	Hamilton	From the	Tuesday, March 11, 1788
68.	Hamilton	From the	Friday, March 14, 1788
69.	Hamilton	From the	Friday, March 14, 1788
70.	Hamilton	From the	Friday, March 14, 1788
71.	Hamilton	From the	Tuesday, March 18, 1788
72.	Hamilton	From the	Friday, March 21, 1788
73.	Hamilton	From the	Friday, March 21, 1788
74.	Hamilton	From the	Tuesday, March 25, 1788
75.	Hamilton	For the	--
76.	Hamilton	From the	Tuesday, April 1, 1788
77.	Hamilton	From the	Friday, April 4, 1788
78.	Hamilton	From McLEAN's Edition, New York	--
79.	Hamilton	From McLEAN's Edition, New York	--
80.	Hamilton	From McLEAN's Edition, New York	--
81.	Hamilton	From McLEAN's Edition	--
82.	Hamilton	From McLEAN's Edition	--
83.	Hamilton	From McLEAN's Edition	--
84.	Hamilton	From McLEAN's Edition	--
85.	Hamilton	From McLEAN's Edition	--

<< Previous: Introduction
Next: Federalist Nos. 1-10 >>
Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 10:16 AM
URL: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers

Games & Quizzes
History & Society
Science & Tech
Biographies
Animals & Nature
Geography & Travel
Arts & Culture
On This Day
One Good Fact
New Articles
Lifestyles & Social Issues
Philosophy & Religion
Politics, Law & Government
World History
Health & Medicine
Browse Biographies
Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
Environment
Fossils & Geologic Time
Entertainment & Pop Culture
Sports & Recreation
Visual Arts
Demystified
Image Galleries
Infographics
Top Questions
Britannica Kids
Saving Earth
Space Next 50
Student Center
Introduction

Written constitution

Noncentralization, areal division of power, elements maintaining noncentralization, elements maintaining the federal principle.

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Social Science LibreTexts - The Meanings of Federalism
Princeton University - Encyclopedia Princetoniensis - Federalism and Federation
Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University - Federalism
Salt Lake Community College - Attenuated Democracy - The Historical Development of Federalism
Open Oregon Educational Resources - Federalism
Brookings - Why Federalism Matters
The Canadian Encyclopedia - Federalism
Hoover Institution - Federalism
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Federalism
Table Of Contents

Recent News

federalism , mode of political organization that unites separate states or other polities within an overarching political system in a way that allows each to maintain its own integrity . Federal systems do this by requiring that basic policies be made and implemented through negotiation in some form, so that all the members can share in making and executing decisions. The political principles that animate federal systems emphasize the primacy of bargaining and negotiated coordination among several power centres; they stress the virtues of dispersed power centres as a means for safeguarding individual and local liberties.

The various political systems that call themselves federal differ in many ways. Certain characteristics and principles, however, are common to all truly federal systems.

voting in the 2012 U.S. presidential election

First, the federal relationship must be established or confirmed through a perpetual covenant of union , usually embodied in a written constitution that outlines the terms by which power is divided or shared; the constitution can be altered only by extraordinary procedures. These constitutions are distinctive in being not simply compacts between rulers and ruled but involving the people, the general government, and the states constituting the federal union. The constituent states, moreover, often retain constitution-making rights of their own.

Second, the political system itself must reflect the constitution by actually diffusing power among a number of substantially self-sustaining centres. Such a diffusion of power may be termed noncentralization . Noncentralization is a way of ensuring in practice that the authority to participate in exercising political power cannot be taken away from the general or the state governments without common consent.

A third element of any federal system is what has been called in the United States territorial democracy . This has two faces: the use of areal divisions to ensure neutrality and equality in the representation of the various groups and interests in the polity and the use of such divisions to secure local autonomy and representation for diverse groups within the same civil society . Territorial neutrality has proved highly useful in societies that are changing, allowing for the representation of new interests in proportion to their strength simply by allowing their supporters to vote in relatively equal territorial units. At the same time, the accommodation of very diverse groups whose differences are fundamental rather than transient by giving them territorial power bases of their own has enhanced the ability of federal systems to function as vehicles of political integration while preserving democratic government. One example of this system may be seen in Canada , which includes a population of French descent, centred in the province of Quebec.

Elements maintaining union

Modern federal systems generally provide direct lines of communication between the citizenry and all the governments that serve them. The people may and usually do elect representatives to all the governments, and all of them may and usually do administer programs that directly serve the individual citizen.

The existence of those direct lines of communication is one of the features distinguishing federations from leagues or confederations . It is usually based on a sense of common nationality binding the constituent polities and people together. In some countries this sense of nationality has been inherited, as in Germany , while in the United States, Argentina , and Australia it had to be at least partly invented. Canada and Switzerland have had to evolve this sense in order to hold together strongly divergent nationality groups.

Geographic necessity has played a part in promoting the maintenance of union within federal systems. The Mississippi Valley in the United States, the Alps in Switzerland, the island character of the Australian continent, and the mountains and jungles surrounding Brazil have all been influences promoting unity; so have the pressures for Canadian union arising from that country’s situation on the border of the United States and the pressures upon the German states generated by their neighbours to the east and west. In this connection, the necessity for a common defense against common enemies has stimulated federal union in the first place and acted to maintain it.

The constituent polities in a federal system must be fairly equal in population and wealth or else balanced geographically or numerically in their inequalities. In the United States, each geographic section has included both great and small states. In Canada, the ethnic differences between the two largest and richest provinces have prevented them from combining against the others. Swiss federalism has been supported by the existence of groups of cantons of different sizes and religio-linguistic backgrounds. Similar distributions exist in every other successful federal system.

A major reason for the failure of federal systems has often been a lack of balance among the constituent polities. In the German federal empire of the late 19th century, Prussia was so dominant that the other states had little opportunity to provide national leadership or even a reasonably strong alternative to the policy of the king and government. During the Soviet era (1917–90/91), the existence of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic—occupying three-fourths of the area and containing three-fifths of the population—severely limited the possibility of authentic federal relationships in that country even if the communist system had not.

Successful federal systems have also been characterized by the permanence of their internal boundaries. Boundary changes may occur, but such changes are made only with the consent of the polities involved and are avoided except in extreme situations.

In a few very important cases, noncentralization is given support through the constitutionally guaranteed existence of different systems of law in the constituent polities. In the United States, each state’s legal system stems directly and to a certain extent uniquely from English (and, in one case, French) law, while federal law occupies only an interstitial position binding the systems of the 50 states together. The resulting mixture of laws keeps the administration of justice substantially noncentralized, even in federal courts. In Canada, the existence of common-law and civil-law systems side by side has contributed to French-Canadian cultural survival. Federal systems more often provide for modification of national legal codes by the subnational governments to meet special local needs, as in Switzerland.

The point has often been made that in a truly federal system the constituent polities must have substantial influence over the formal or informal constitutional -amending process. Since constitutional changes are often made without formal constitutional amendment , the position of the constituent polities must be such that serious changes in the political order can be made only by the decision of dispersed majorities that reflect the areal division of powers . Federal theorists have argued that this is important for popular government as well as for federalism.

Noncentralization is also strengthened by giving the constituent polities guaranteed representation in the national legislature and often by giving them a guaranteed role in the national political process. The latter is guaranteed in the written constitutions of the United States and Switzerland. In other systems, such as those of Canada and Latin America , the constituent polities have acquired certain powers of participation, and these have become part of the unwritten constitution.

Perhaps the most important single element in the maintenance of federal noncentralization is the existence of a noncentralized party system. Noncentralized parties initially develop out of the constitutional arrangements of the federal compact, but once they have come into existence they tend to be self-perpetuating and to function as decentralizing forces in their own right. The United States and Canada provide examples of the forms that a noncentralized party system may take. In the two-party system of the United States, the parties are actually coalitions of the state parties (which may in turn be dominated by specific local party organizations) and generally function as national units only for the quadrennial presidential elections or for purposes of organizing the national Congress.

In Canada, on the other hand, the parliamentary form of government, with its requirements of party responsibility, means that on the national plane considerably more party cohesiveness must be maintained simply in order to gain and hold power. There has been a fragmentation of the parties along regional or provincial lines. The party victorious in national elections is likely to be the one able to expand its provincial electoral bases temporarily to national proportions.

Federal nations with less-developed party systems frequently gain some of the same decentralizing effects through what has been called caudillismo —in which power is diffused among strong local leaders operating in the constituent polities. Caudillistic noncentralization has apparently existed also in Nigeria and Malaysia.

Several devices found in federal systems serve to maintain the federal principle itself. Two of these are of particular importance.

The maintenance of federalism requires that the central government and the constituent polities each have substantially complete governing institutions of their own, with the right to modify those institutions unilaterally within limits set by the compact. Both separate legislative and separate administrative institutions are necessary.

The contractual sharing of public responsibilities by all governments in the system appears to be a fundamental characteristic of federalism. Sharing, broadly conceived, includes common involvement in policy making, financing, and administration. Sharing may be formal or informal; in federal systems, it is usually contractual. The contract is used as a legal device to enable governments to engage in joint action while remaining independent entities. Even where there is no formal arrangement, the spirit of federalism tends to infuse a sense of contractual obligation.

Federal systems or systems strongly influenced by federal principles have been among the most stable and long-lasting of polities. But the successful operation of federal systems requires a particular kind of political environment , one that is conducive to popular government and has the requisite traditions of political cooperation and self-restraint. Beyond this, federal systems operate best in societies with sufficient homogeneity of fundamental interests to allow a great deal of latitude to local government and to permit reliance upon voluntary collaboration. The use of force to maintain domestic order is even more inimical to the successful maintenance of federal patterns of government than to other forms of popular government. Federal systems are most successful in societies that have the human resources to fill many public offices competently and the material resources to afford a measure of economic waste as part of the price of liberty.

Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

Advance articles
Author Guidelines
Open Access
Submission Site
Book Reviews
Why Submit?
About American Journal of Legal History
Editorial Board
Advertising and Corporate Services
Journals Career Network
Self-Archiving Policy
Dispatch Dates
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

Christian G Fritz, Monitoring American Federalism: The History of State Legislative Resistance

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

Jane Manners, Christian G Fritz, Monitoring American Federalism: The History of State Legislative Resistance , American Journal of Legal History , 2024;, njae007, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajlh/njae007

Permissions Icon Permissions

What is interposition? Today, we associate the term with state sovereignty: a key plank in the putative justification of nullification and secession in the nineteenth century and massive resistance to school integration in the twentieth. John Calhoun thought the ‘right of interposition’ was interchangeable with ‘State-right, veto, nullification’. 1 Martin Luther King spoke of ‘Alabama with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification’. 2 Southern state legislatures issued interposition resolutions that asserted their refusal to comply with Supreme Court desegregation mandates.

In Monitoring American Federalism , Christian Fritz makes the case that this view of interposition is too narrow, as a matter of both historical accuracy and normative constitutional theory. To Fritz, there is a divide between the interposition invoked by Calhoun and his successors, which involved state action to thwart national authority, and an earlier practice of state legislatures ‘sounding the alarm’ about perceived national government encroachments on states’ rights. Fritz’s project is to recover the history of this alternative version of interposition, rescuing what he views as the legitimate and often salutary practice of ‘formal state protest against actions of the national government … to focus public attention and generate interstate political pressure’ (5) from the ignominy rightly associated with the later version. To Fritz, this early practice of legislative protest is a useful reminder that for the first several decades of the Republic, the responsibility of scrutinizing the constitutionality of national government actions was understood to be shared by ‘citizens, juries, the press, and most importantly, state legislatures’, rather than ‘the monopoly of the Supreme Court’ (7–8).

Personal account

Sign in with email/username & password
Get email alerts
Save searches
Purchase content
Activate your purchase/trial code
Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with username/password
Recommend to your librarian
Institutional account management
Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institutionâ€™s website and Oxford Academic.

Click Sign in through your institution.
Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institutionâ€™s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see â€˜Sign in through society siteâ€™ in the sign in pane within a journal:

Click Sign in through society site.
When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

Online ISSN 2161-797X
Print ISSN 0002-9319
Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Rights and permissions
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Federalism and the United States Constitution

U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights
History & Major Milestones
U.S. Legal System
U.S. Political System
Defense & Security
Campaigns & Elections
Business & Finance
U.S. Foreign Policy
U.S. Liberal Politics
U.S. Conservative Politics
Women's Issues
Civil Liberties
The Middle East
Race Relations
Immigration
Crime & Punishment
Canadian Government
Understanding Types of Government
B.S., Texas A&M University

Federalism is a compound system of government in which a single, central government is combined with regional government units such as states or provinces in a single political confederation. In this context, federalism can be defined as a system of government in which powers are divided among two levels of government of equal status. In the United States, for example, the system of federalism as it was created by the U.S. Constitution divides powers between the national government and the various state and territorial governments.

How Federalism Came to the Constitution

Americans today take federalism for granted, but its inclusion in the Constitution did not come without considerable controversy.

The so-called Great Debate over federalism took the spotlight on May 25, 1787, when 55 delegates representing 12 of the original 13 U.S. states gathered in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention . New Jersey was the lone state that chose not to send a delegation.

The main goal of the Convention was to revise the Articles of Confederation , the agreement that governed the 13 colonies and was adopted by the Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, shortly after the end of the Revolutionary War .

Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation

As the nation’s first written constitution, the Articles of Confederation laid out a decidedly limited federal government with more significant powers granted to the states. This led to weaknesses such as unfair representation and a lack of structured law enforcement.

Among the most glaring of these weaknesses were:

Each state— regardless of its population —got only one vote in Congress.
There was only one chamber of Congress rather than a House and Senate .
All laws required a 9/13 supermajority vote to pass in Congress.
Members of Congress were appointed by the state legislatures rather than elected by the people.
Congress had no power to levy taxes or regulate foreign and interstate commerce.
There was no executive branch provided to enforce laws passed by Congress.
There was no Supreme Court or lower national court system .
Amendments to the Articles of Confederation required a unanimous vote of the states.

The limitations of the Articles of Confederation had been the cause of a seemingly endless series of conflicts between the states, especially in the areas of interstate trade and tariffs. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention hoped the new covenant they were crafting would prevent such disputes.

However, the new Constitution signed by the Founding Fathers in 1787 needed to be ratified by at least nine of the 13 states in order to take effect. This would prove to be far harder than the document’s supporters had expected.

A Great Debate Over Power Erupts

As one of the most impactful aspects of the Constitution, the concept of federalism was considered extremely innovative—and controversial—in 1787. For one, splitting powers between the national and state governments was in stark contrast with the unitary system of government practiced for centuries in Great Britain. Under such unitary systems, the national government allows local governments very limited powers to govern themselves or their residents. Thus, it is not surprising that Articles of Confederation, coming so soon after the end of Britain’s often tyrannical unitary control of colonial America, provided for an extremely weak national government.

Many newly-independent Americans, including some tasked with drafting the new Constitution, simply did not trust a strong national government—a lack of trust that resulted in a Great Debate.

Taking place both during the Constitutional Convention and later during the state ratification process, The Great Debate over federalism pitted the Federalists against the Anti-Federalists .

Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

Headed by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton , the Federalists favored a strong national government, while the Anti-Federalists, led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, favored a weaker U.S. government and wanted to leave more power to the states.

Opposed to the new Constitution, the Anti-Federalists argued that the document’s provision of federalism promoted a corrupt government, with the three separate branches constantly battling each other for control. To win more support for their side, Anti-Federalists stirred fear among the people that a strong national government might allow the President of the United States to act virtually as a king.

In defending the new Constitution, Federalist leader James Madison wrote in the “Federalist Papers” that the system of government created by the document would be “neither wholly national nor wholly federal.” Madison argued that federalism’s system of shared powers would prevent each state from acting as its own sovereign nation with the power to override the laws of the Confederation.

Indeed, the Articles of Confederation had unequivocally stated, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

Federalism Wins the Day

On September 17, 1787, the proposed Constitution—including its provision for federalism—was signed by 39 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention and sent to the states for ratification.

Under Article VII, the new Constitution would not become binding until it had been approved by the legislatures of at least nine of the 13 states.

In a purely tactical move, the Federalist supporters of the Constitution began the ratification process in those states where they had encountered little or no opposition, postponing the more difficult states until later.

On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution. Effective March 4, 1789, the United States officially became governed by the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Rhode Island would be the thirteenth and final state to ratify the Constitution on May 29, 1790.

The Debate Over the Bill of Rights

Along with the Great Debate over federalism, a controversy arose during the ratification process over the Constitution’s perceived failure to protect the basic rights of American citizens.

Led by Massachusetts, several states argued that the new Constitution failed to protect the basic individual rights and freedoms that the British Crown had denied the American colonists—the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, petition, and the press. In addition, these states also objected to their lack of power.

In order to ensure ratification, supporters of the Constitution agreed to create and include the Bill of Rights, which, at the time, included twelve rather than 10 amendments .

Mainly to appease Anti-Federalists who feared that the U.S. Constitution would give the federal government total control over the states, Federalist leaders agreed to add the Tenth Amendment , which specifies that, “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.”

What Were the Top Causes of the Civil War?
Republic vs. Democracy: What Is the Difference?
The U.S. Constitution
The Order in Which the States Ratified the US Constitution
Who Were the Anti-Federalists?
What Was the Virginia Plan?
Why the Articles of Confederation Failed
What Is Federalism? Definition and How It Works in the US
Constitutional Convention
Fast Facts About the U.S. Constitution
The 10th Amendment: Text, Origins, and Meaning
What Is Constitution Day in the United States?
The Original Bill of Rights Had 12 Amendments
Types of Federalism: Definition and Examples
5 Key Compromises of the Constitutional Convention
Continental Congress: History, Significance, and Purpose

Teacher Opportunities
AP U.S. Government Key Terms
Bureaucracy & Regulation
Campaigns & Elections
Civil Rights & Civil Liberties
Comparative Government
Constitutional Foundation
Criminal Law & Justice
Economics & Financial Literacy
English & Literature
Environmental Policy & Land Use
Executive Branch
Federalism and State Issues
Foreign Policy
Gun Rights & Firearm Legislation
Immigration
Interest Groups & Lobbying
Judicial Branch
Legislative Branch
Political Parties
Science & Technology
Social Services
State History
Supreme Court Cases
U.S. History
World History

Log-in to bookmark & organize content - it's free!

Bell Ringers
Lesson Plans
Featured Resources

Lesson Plan: Federalism in the United States

States' Rights and the Tenth Amendment

Roger Pilon and Louis Michael Seidman talked about the Tenth Amendment and the concept of states' rights.

Description

Federalism is the system in the U.S. government in which power is distributed and shared between the federal government and state governments. It was created through many different aspects of the U.S. Constitution, including the 10th amendment. Over time, federalism and the relationship between the federal and state governments have evolved because how different clauses of the U.S. Constitution have been interpreted and the reality of issues in the country. In this lesson, students will learn about the system of federalism, its constitutional basis, and its significance on public policy issues throughout the country.

INTRODUCTION

Have each student create a chart with three headings: "Federal Power," "State Power," and "Shared Power." Have students list powers that they believe are held by the federal government, state governments, or are shared. Then, have them discuss and debate their list with a partner or small group. Finally, discuss and debate the different powers and who holds them as an entire class.

Break students into groups and have each group view the following video clips. Students should take notes using the handout provided or answer the individual Bell Ringer questions, and then share their findings with the rest of the class.

HANDOUT: Federalism Handout (Google Doc)

Video Clip: States' Rights and the Tenth Amendment (3:52)

Video Clip: Federalism vs States' Rights (0:57)

Constitution Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra discusses Federalism vs States' Rights.

Video Clip: Federalism and Powers of the Congress (4:25)

Senator Mike Lee discussed the concept of federalism and the powers of Congress. He discussed the issue of state laws about the legalization of marijuana while explaining the enumerated powers, the necessary and proper clause and the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.

Video Clip: The Role of State and Local Governments (6:03)

National Association of Counties' Bryan Desloge and Peter McLaughlin talked about and the role of state and local governments across the country and the need for more federal-state-local partnerships.

Video Clip: The Supremacy Clause (3:15)

CLIP 1: Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) discussed the Supremacy Clause and the powers of the states. CLIP 2: KrisAnne Hall talked about her book Sovereign Duty, and how the Supremacy Clause enforces the Constitution.

After watching the videos and reporting out to the class, have students watch the following videos and discuss the questions below.

Video Clips: Federalism Issues (2 clips)

VIDEO CLIP 1. Jonathan Rauch discusses the concept of federalism as well as several policy issues in conflict between state and federal governments.

VIDEO CLIP 2. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) and Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) debate Federal vs. States laws as they pertain to the legalization of marijuana.

Why does Jonathan Rauch say that the United States is “in a period of ferment on federalism?” What are the two questions that need to be asked on these issues?

Explain the policy issues and the conflict that each are creating in regards to federalism according to Jonathan Rauch.

What does Jonathan Rauch say is not in question regarding federalism? Describe what is in question for these issues.

How does the debate between Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) and Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) illustrate the system of federalism and the complexity it can cause on public policy issues.

After watching the concluding videos and discussing the questions, have students write an essay (or similar culminating activity) on a public policy issue that illustrates the complexity of federalism. Students can use the C-SPAN Video Library or other resources for research. Each essay should include:

Background of the public policy issue

The current controversy of the issue and how it illustrates the complexity of federalism

Whether they believe the issue should be controlled by the federal government, state government, or shared. Students should use constitutional justifications based on their chart and classroom discussions.

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES:

Argumentative Essay Free Response Question- Respond to this writing prompt (Google Doc) presented in the style of the Argumentative Question component of the redesigned AP Government and Politics exam.

Concept Application Questions Free Response Question- Respond to this writing prompt (Google Doc) presented in the style of the Argumentative Question component of the redesigned AP Government and Politics exam.

10th Amendment
Commerce Clause
Concurrent Powers
Constitution
Exclusive Powers
Necessary And Proper Clause
Separation Of Powers
Supremacy Clause
Supreme Court

3.5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Federalism

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Discuss the advantages of federalism
Explain the disadvantages of federalism

The federal design of our Constitution has had a profound effect on U.S. politics. Several positive and negative attributes of federalism have manifested themselves in the U.S. political system.

THE BENEFITS OF FEDERALISM

Among the merits of federalism are that it promotes policy innovation and political participation and accommodates diversity of opinion. On the subject of policy innovation, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis observed in 1932 that “a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” 70 What Brandeis meant was that states could harness their constitutional authority to engage in policy innovations that might eventually be diffused to other states and at the national level. For example, a number of New Deal breakthroughs, such as child labor laws, were inspired by state policies. Prior to the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment , women already had the right to vote in several states. California has led the way in establishing standards for fuel emissions and other environmental policies ( Figure 3.18 ). Recently, the health insurance exchanges run by Connecticut, Kentucky, Rhode Island, and Washington have served as models for other states seeking to improve the performance of their exchanges. 71

Another advantage of federalism is that because our federal system creates two levels of government with the capacity to take action, failure to attain a desired policy goal at one level can be offset by successfully securing the support of elected representatives at another level. Thus, individuals, groups, and social movements are encouraged to actively participate and help shape public policy.

Get Connected!

Federalism and political office.

Thinking of running for elected office? Well, you have several options. As Table 3.1 shows, there are a total of 510,682 elected offices at the federal, state, and local levels. Elected representatives in municipal and township governments account for a little more than half the total number of elected officials in the United States. Political careers rarely start at the national level. In fact, a very small share of politicians at the subnational level transition to the national stage as representatives, senators, vice presidents, or presidents.

	Number of Elective Bodies	Number of Elected Officials
	1
Executive branch		2
U.S. Senate		100
U.S. House of Representatives		435
	50
State legislatures		7,382
Statewide offices		1,036
State boards		1,331

County governments	3,034	58,818
Municipal governments	19,429	135,531
Town governments	16,504	126,958
School districts	13,506	95,000
Special districts	35,052	84,089

If you are interested in serving the public as an elected official, there are more opportunities to do so at the local and state levels than at the national level. As an added incentive for setting your sights at the subnational stage, consider the following. Whereas only 35 percent of U.S. adults trusted Congress in 2018, according to Gallup, about 63 percent trusted their state governments and 72 percent had confidence in their local governments. 74 , 75

If you ran for public office, what problems would you most want to solve? What level of government would best enable you to solve them, and why?

The system of checks and balances in our political system often prevents the federal government from imposing uniform policies across the country. As a result, states and local communities have the latitude to address policy issues based on the specific needs and interests of their citizens. The diversity of public viewpoints across states is manifested by differences in the way states handle access to abortion, distribution of alcohol, gun control, and social welfare benefits, for example.

THE DRAWBACKS OF FEDERALISM

Federalism also comes with drawbacks. Chief among them are economic disparities across states, race-to-the-bottom dynamics (i.e., states compete to attract business by lowering taxes and regulations), and the difficulty of taking action on issues of national importance.

Stark economic differences across states have a profound effect on the well-being of citizens. For example, in 2017, Maryland had the highest median household income ($80,776), while West Virginia had the lowest ($43,469). 76 There are also huge disparities in school funding across states. In 2016, New York spent $22,366 per student for elementary and secondary education, while Utah spent $6,953. 77 Furthermore, health-care access, costs, and quality vary greatly across states. 78 Proponents of social justice contend that federalism has tended to obstruct national efforts to effectively even out these disparities. When national policy-making is stymied, and policy advocates move to the state level, it takes fifty-one different advocacy efforts to bring about change, compared to one effort were the national government to take the lead.

Link to Learning

The National Education Association discusses the problem of inequality in the educational system of the United States. Visit the Racial & Social Justice page of the NEA website to see how NEA EdJustice is advocating for change in this area.

The economic strategy of using race-to-the-bottom tactics in order to compete with other states in attracting new business growth also carries a social cost. For example, workers’ safety and pay can suffer as workplace regulations are lifted, and the reduction in payroll taxes for employers has led a number of states to end up with underfunded unemployment insurance programs. 79 As of March 2021, twelve states have also opted not to expand Medicaid, as encouraged by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010, for fear it will raise state public spending and increase employers’ cost of employee benefits, despite provisions that the federal government will pick up nearly all cost of the expansion. 80 , 81 More than half of these states are in the South.

The federal design of our Constitution and the system of checks and balances has jeopardized or outright blocked federal responses to important national issues. President Roosevelt’s efforts to combat the scourge of the Great Depression were initially struck down by the Supreme Court. More recently, President Obama’s effort to make health insurance accessible to more Americans under the Affordable Care Act immediately ran into legal challenges 82 from some states, but it has been supported by the Supreme Court so far. However, the federal government’s ability to defend the voting rights of citizens suffered a major setback when the Supreme Court in 2013 struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 . 83 No longer are the nine states with histories of racial discrimination in their voting processes required to submit plans for changes to the federal government for approval. After a tumultuous 2020 election, many states in 2021 advanced legislation to make voting rules and processes more rigorous, a move many said was an effort to limit voting access. For example, elected leaders in Georgia passed a law making voter ID requirements much stricter and also significantly limited options to vote outside of Election Day itself. 84 In 2023's Moore v. Harper , the Supreme Court affirmed that state legislatures were not able to pass these laws with complete autonomy. Rejecting the theory of "independent state legislature," which asserted that states had the sole power to pass election laws, the Court ruled that voting laws passed by state governments were subject to judicial review. In 2023, the Court also ruled in favor of a challenge—already upheld by district courts—to new voting maps drawn up in Alabama; the plaintiffs had asserted that the new maps violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the votes of Black voters. The Court agreed, and in the process held that the Voting Rights Act remained constitutional with regard to redistricting. 85

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Glen Krutz, Sylvie Waskiewicz, PhD
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: American Government 3e
Publication date: Jul 28, 2021
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/3-5-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-federalism

© Jan 5, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

The Significance and Impact of the Great Compromise

This essay about the Great Compromise explores its crucial role in shaping the United States Constitution during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It highlights the resolution of disputes between large and small states by creating a bicameral legislature. The essay discusses the lasting impacts of this compromise on American politics, the balance of power, and its broader cultural significance, emphasizing the ongoing importance of negotiation and cooperation in democratic governance.

How it works

The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, was a seminal moment in the formation of the United States Constitution, marking a pivotal resolution in the contentious debates that took place during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. This compromise played a critical role in shaping the structure of the United States government and has had lasting impacts on American politics and governance.

During the Constitutional Convention, delegates from the various states were sharply divided over how representation in the new government should be allocated.

Larger states favored the Virginia Plan, which proposed a bicameral legislature with representation based on population. Smaller states, fearing domination by the more populous states, supported the New Jersey Plan, which called for a unicameral legislature with equal representation for each state. This deadlock threatened the success of the convention and, by extension, the future of the fledgling nation.

The Great Compromise, proposed by Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, offered a solution that blended both plans. It established a bicameral legislature with two houses: the House of Representatives, with representation based on population, and the Senate, with equal representation for each state, regardless of size. This dual system of representation balanced the interests of both large and small states, ensuring that neither would dominate the other.

The significance of the Great Compromise cannot be overstated. By addressing the concerns of both large and small states, it facilitated the creation of a stronger and more unified federal government. The compromise helped to prevent the dissolution of the convention and the potential fragmentation of the United States into smaller, weaker confederacies. It laid the foundation for a federal system that balanced power between the national government and the states, a hallmark of American democracy.

Moreover, the Great Compromise had a profound impact on the legislative process in the United States. By creating a bicameral legislature, it ensured that both the will of the majority and the rights of the minority would be considered in the law-making process. This structure has allowed for more thorough debate and deliberation on proposed legislation, helping to prevent hasty or ill-considered laws from being passed. The requirement for both houses to agree on legislation has also fostered a spirit of compromise and cooperation between different political factions.

The legacy of the Great Compromise extends beyond its immediate effects on the Constitutional Convention. It has influenced the development of American political culture and the functioning of the federal government for over two centuries. The principles of representation and federalism enshrined in the compromise continue to shape debates over the balance of power between the national government and the states, as well as between different branches of government.

In contemporary American politics, the impact of the Great Compromise can be seen in the ongoing debates over issues such as voting rights, the electoral college, and the role of the Senate. For example, the equal representation of states in the Senate means that less populous states have a disproportionate influence on federal legislation and presidential appointments. This has led to calls for reform from some quarters, arguing that the current system does not adequately reflect the democratic principle of one person, one vote.

Conversely, supporters of the existing system argue that the Great Compromise continues to protect the interests of smaller states and prevent the tyranny of the majority. They contend that the bicameral legislature encourages more thoughtful and balanced policymaking by requiring broad consensus for significant legislative changes. This tension between the ideals of equal representation and federalism remains a central theme in American political discourse.

In addition to its impact on the structure and function of the federal government, the Great Compromise has also had broader cultural and social implications. It symbolizes the spirit of negotiation and compromise that has been a defining characteristic of American politics. The ability to find common ground and reconcile differing interests is a key aspect of democratic governance, and the Great Compromise serves as a historical example of this principle in action.

The importance of the Great Compromise is also reflected in its influence on other constitutional frameworks around the world. Many countries have looked to the United States Constitution as a model for their own systems of government, and the principles of bicameralism and federalism have been adopted in various forms by numerous nations. The success of the Great Compromise in creating a stable and effective government has reinforced the idea that thoughtful negotiation and compromise are essential components of a functional democracy.

In conclusion, the Great Compromise was a pivotal moment in the history of the United States, with far-reaching consequences for the structure and function of the federal government. By balancing the interests of large and small states, it facilitated the creation of a unified and effective national government. Its legacy continues to shape American politics and governance, influencing debates over representation, federalism, and the balance of power. The Great Compromise stands as a testament to the importance of negotiation and compromise in achieving lasting and meaningful political solutions.

Cite this page

The Significance and Impact of the Great Compromise. (2024, Jun 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-significance-and-impact-of-the-great-compromise/

"The Significance and Impact of the Great Compromise." PapersOwl.com , 1 Jun 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-significance-and-impact-of-the-great-compromise/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Significance and Impact of the Great Compromise . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-significance-and-impact-of-the-great-compromise/ [Accessed: 9 Jun. 2024]

"The Significance and Impact of the Great Compromise." PapersOwl.com, Jun 01, 2024. Accessed June 9, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-significance-and-impact-of-the-great-compromise/

"The Significance and Impact of the Great Compromise," PapersOwl.com , 01-Jun-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-significance-and-impact-of-the-great-compromise/. [Accessed: 9-Jun-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Forms of Government — Federalism

Essays on Federalism

When it comes to writing an essay on Federalism, there are many topics to choose from. Federalism is a complex and multifaceted concept that has been at the heart of political discourse for centuries. From its origins in the United States to its application in other countries around the world, Federalism has been a topic of debate and discussion for scholars, policymakers, and citizens alike.

Comparison between Federalism and Unitarism

One of the most popular topics when it comes to Federalism is the comparison between Federalism and Unitarism. This topic delves into the differences between the two systems of government and the pros and cons of each. It also explores the historical context of Federalism and Unitarism and how they have been applied in different countries.

Role of Federalism in promoting democracy and protecting individual rights

Another popular topic is the role of Federalism in promoting democracy and protecting individual rights. This topic looks at how Federalism can be a safeguard against tyranny and how it can promote citizen participation in government. It also examines the ways in which Federalism can prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a few and ensure that the rights of all citizens are protected.

Impact of Federalism on public policy

The impact of Federalism on public policy is another important topic to consider. This topic explores how Federalism influences the development and implementation of public policies in areas such as healthcare, education, and environmental protection. It also looks at the challenges and opportunities that Federalism presents for policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels.

Role of Federalism in addressing social and economic inequality

The role of Federalism in addressing social and economic inequality is also a timely and relevant topic. This topic examines how Federalism can be used to promote economic development, reduce poverty, and address social disparities. It also looks at the potential drawbacks of Federalism in addressing these issues and how policymakers can navigate these challenges.

Impact of Federalism on intergovernmental relations

The impact of Federalism on intergovernmental relations is another important aspect to consider. This topic explores the dynamics of the relationship between the federal government and state and local governments. It also examines the mechanisms through which intergovernmental cooperation and conflict can be resolved and how Federalism can be used to promote effective governance.

Impact of Federalism on political parties and electoral systems

The impact of Federalism on political parties and electoral systems is another interesting topic to explore. This topic looks at how Federalism influences the formation and operation of political parties and the conduct of elections. It also examines the ways in which Federalism can either promote or hinder political competition and the representation of diverse interests.

Role of Federalism in promoting cultural diversity and minority rights

The role of Federalism in promoting cultural diversity and minority rights is another important topic to consider. This topic examines how Federalism can be used to protect the rights of minority groups and preserve cultural heritage. It also looks at the challenges and opportunities that Federalism presents for promoting inclusion and diversity in society.

Impact of Federalism on public administration and governance

The impact of Federalism on public administration and governance is also an important topic to explore. This topic examines how Federalism influences the structure and operation of public institutions and the delivery of public services. It also looks at the ways in which Federalism can promote administrative efficiency and accountability.

Role of Federalism in addressing global challenges

The role of Federalism in addressing global challenges such as climate change, migration, and security is another important topic to consider. This topic explores how Federalism can be used to coordinate international efforts to address these challenges and the potential obstacles that Federalism presents in this regard.

The choice of Federalism essay topics is vast and varied. From the comparison between Federalism and Unitarism to the impact of Federalism on public policy, intergovernmental relations, political parties, cultural diversity, and global challenges, there are many important and relevant topics to explore. By choosing a topic that is of interest and relevance, students and scholars can delve into the complexities of Federalism and contribute to the ongoing debate and discussion surrounding this important concept.

How Did Federalism Guard Against Tyranny

Causes of federalism prevent tyranny essay, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Understanding Federalism: The Division of Power Between The National and State Governments

Federalism: the advantages and disadvantages, history of the usa: the importance of federalism, the concept of cooperative federalism and its activity in the united states, let us write you an essay from scratch.

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Use of Federalism in The Philippines Under The Administration of President Duterte

The negative impact of federalism on economic performances, the theory of fiscal federalism and its features, the difference between federalists and anti-federalists, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Debate Around Constitution Between Federalists and Anti Federalists

Hamilton and jefferson's disagreement on federal government power, issues of federalis as seen in the usa governing system, the james bryce's and grodzin's different views on federalism, the liberty of anti federalist papers proposed by patrick henry, thomas jefferson and alexander hamilton: anti-federalist and federalist, the evolution of government based on dual federalism in the state of texas, anti-federalist papers: the development of american government, the difference between federalism, authoritarianism and totalitarianism, evolution of the government in india, the anti-federalists more like the anti-hisotirilists, the origin in forming a governmental structure in favor of the newly formed constitution of federalism, the advantages and disadvantages of federalism in florida, the history of tyranny and its features, america: from cooperative to coercive federalism, federalism - the way to success for myanmar, the role of federalism in democracy, relevant topics.

Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Jackson
Electoral College
Transportation
Nelson Mandela

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Chapter 3: American Federalism

Advantages and Disadvantages of Federalism

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Discuss the advantages of federalism
Explain the disadvantages of federalism

The federal design of our Constitution has had a profound effect on U.S. politics. Several positive and negative attributes of federalism have manifested themselves in the U.S. political system.

THE BENEFITS OF FEDERALISM

Among the merits of federalism are that it promotes policy innovation and political participation and accommodates diversity of opinion. On the subject of policy innovation, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis observed in 1932 that “a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” [1] What Brandeis meant was that states could harness their constitutional authority to engage in policy innovations that might eventually be diffused to other states and at the national level. For example, a number of New Deal breakthroughs, such as child labor laws, were inspired by state policies. Prior to the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment , women already had the right to vote in several states. California has led the way in establishing standards for fuel emissions and other environmental policies ( Figure 3.18 ). Recently, the health insurance exchanges run by Connecticut, Kentucky, Rhode Island, and Washington have served as models for other states seeking to improve the performance of their exchanges. [2]

Image A shows the Golden Gate bridge with a moderate amount of traffic. Image B shows a sticker on a car that states “Access OK California clean air vehicle”. The sticker has the California state seal.

[3] Another advantage of federalism is that because our federal system creates two levels of government with the capacity to take action, failure to attain a desired policy goal at one level can be offset by successfully securing the support of elected representatives at another level. Thus, individuals, groups, and social movements are encouraged to actively participate and help shape public policy.

GET CONNECTED!

Federalism and political office.

Table 3.1 This table lists the number of elected bodies and elected officials at the federal, state, and local levels.
Elected Officials at the Federal, State, and Local Levels
	Number of Elective Bodies	Number of Elected Officials
	1
Executive branch		2
U.S. Senate		100
U.S. House of Representatives		435
	50
State legislatures		7,382
Statewide offices		1,036
State boards		1,331

County governments	3,034	58,818
Municipal governments	19,429	135,531
Town governments	16,504	126,958
School districts	13,506	95,000
Special districts	35,052	84,089

If you ran for public office, what problems would you most want to solve? What level of government would best enable you to solve them, and why?

THE DRAWBACKS OF FEDERALISM

Stark economic differences across states have a profound effect on the well-being of citizens. For example, in 2017, Maryland had the highest median household income ($80,776), while West Virginia had the lowest ($43,469). [7] There are also huge disparities in school funding across states. In 2016, New York spent $22,366 per student for elementary and secondary education, while Utah spent $6,953. [8] Furthermore, health-care access, costs, and quality vary greatly across states. [9] Proponents of social justice contend that federalism has tended to obstruct national efforts to effectively even out these disparities. When national policy-making is stymied, and policy advocates move to the state level, it takes fifty-one different advocacy efforts to bring about change, compared to one effort were the national government to take the lead.

LINK TO LEARNING

The economic strategy of using race-to-the-bottom tactics in order to compete with other states in attracting new business growth also carries a social cost. For example, workers’ safety and pay can suffer as workplace regulations are lifted, and the reduction in payroll taxes for employers has led a number of states to end up with underfunded unemployment insurance programs. [10] As of March 2021, twelve states have also opted not to expand Medicaid, as encouraged by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010, for fear it will raise state public spending and increase employers’ cost of employee benefits, despite provisions that the federal government will pick up nearly all cost of the expansion. [11] , [12] More than half of these states are in the South.

CHAPTER REVIEW

See the Chapter 3.5 Review for a summary of this section, the key vocabulary , and some review questions to check your knowledge.

New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932). ↵
Christine Vestal and Michael Ollove, “Why some state-run health exchanges worked,” USA Today, 10 December 2013. ↵
Rachel Frazin, "More States Follow California's Lead on Vehicle Emissions Standards," The Hill, 28 February 2021, https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/540795-more-states-follow-californias-lead-on-vehicle-emissions-standards. ↵
Jennifer Lawless. 2012. Becoming a Candidate. New York: Cambridge University Press. ↵
Justin McCarthy. 2014. “Americans Still More Trusting of Local Than State Government," Gallup, 8 October 2018, https://news.gallup.com/poll/243563/americans-trusting-local-state-government.aspx. ↵
Lydia Saad, "Trust in Federal Government's Competence Remains Low," Gallup, 29 September 2020, https://news.gallup.com/poll/321119/trust-federal-government-competence-remains-low.aspx. ↵
United States Census Bureau. 2017. “Median Household Income (in 2017 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars.” 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_17_1YR_R1901.US01PRF&prodType=table. ↵
Governing the States and Localities. 1 June 2018. “Education Spending per Student by State.” http://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html. ↵
The Commonwealth Fund. “Aiming Higher: Results from a Scorecard on State Health System Performance, 2014.” http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/apr/2014-state-scorecard (June 24, 2015). ↵
Alexander Hertel-Fernandez. 2012. “Why U.S. Unemployment Insurance is in Financial Trouble,” February. http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/ssn_basic_facts_hertel-fernandez_on_unemployment_insurance_financing.pdf ↵
Matt Broaddus and January Angeles. 2012. “Federal Government Will Pick Up Nearly All Costs of Health Reform’s Medicaid Expansion,” March 28. http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-government-will-pick-up-nearly-all-costs-of-health-reforms-medicaid-expansion. ↵
"Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions: Interactive Map," KKF, 7 June 2021, https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/status-of-state-medicaid-expansion-decisions-interactive-map/. ↵
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012). ↵
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013). ↵
Mark Niesse, "Sweeping Changes to Georgia Elections Signed into Law," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 25 March 2021, https://www.ajc.com/politics/bill-changing-georgia-voting-rules-passes-state-house/EY2MATS6SRA77HTOBVEMTJLIT4/. ↵

a dynamic in which states compete to attract business by lowering taxes and regulations, often to workers’ detriment

Share This Book

Skip to main content
Skip to secondary menu
Skip to primary sidebar
Skip to footer

A Plus Topper

Improve your Grades

Federalism Essay | Essay on Federalism for Students and Children in English

February 13, 2024 by Prasanna

Federalism Essay: Federal system is the method used by various countries where the power is shared by both the central government and the local or state governments. The central government can be powerful but cannot take all the state-level decisions or even choose state leaders.

Federalism allows the citizens to participate and also helps in the overall management of the country. Thus, the role of elections is very important in federal systems.

You can also find more Essay Writing articles on events, persons, sports, technology and many more.

Long and Short Essays on Nutrition for Students and Kids in English

We are providing students with essay samples on a long essay of 500 words and a short essay of 150 words on the topic Federalism for reference.

Long Essay on Federalism 500 Words in English

Long Essay on Federalism is usually given to classes 7, 8, 9, and 10.

In federal systems, the national government has the central authority over the whole national territory, whereas the provincial or state governments have individual power within their provinces. The duties, rights, and responsibilities of the central government, as well as the state governments, are mentioned in the constitution of particular countries.

The constitution gives delegated, implied, and inherent powers to the central administrative units, whereas certain powers are reserved for the states and local governing units. The main center can make national-level decisions, whereas the states have the power to regulate laws and orders in the various areas within the state. The need for security and a common defense system against external conflicts along with the decentralization of administrative power and unequal economic development between different units of a country may necessitate the adoption of the federal government.

Federalism plays an important role in unifying states with common cultural and historical background. The factor of geographical proximity is an important precondition for the formation of a federation. The countries must have enough economic resources to adopt the federal system.

Except for China, the seven other largest countries of the world, such as the United States of America, Canada, Brazil, Russia, Australia, Argentina, and India, have federal systems. Austria, Belgium, Ethiopia, Germany, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Switzerland, the UAE, and Venezuela have also adopted federalism.

There are various types of federalism like dual (sovereignty is divided), asymmetric (differential autonomy of states), cooperative (federal, central, and state governments operate cooperatively), competitive (central government competes with state governments and vice versa), and creative (federal government provides for the needs of the states).

On May 25th, 1787, at the Philadelphia convention, the idea of a federal system was first proposed. The advocates of the federal system were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and George Washington, who attempted to balance order with liberty and suggested various reasons for the formation of a federalist system which included prevention of tyranny, increasing participation in politics and functioning of the states for new ideas and developments.

In the USA, after the formation of the country and the American Civil War, the national government came into power with the rise of dual and state-centered federalism along with the origin of neo-federalism. In France, the whole plan of the federal government was to weaken the Paris central government by the division of power to major provinces during the French Revolution. In India, there is a three-tiered government structure with the Central government, state and union government, and panchayats and municipalities. An asymmetric federal system can be here with certain states getting limited autonomy.

The advantages of a federal system include diffusion of power, creating responsible state governments, managing the internal and external disputes, the involvement of the citizens, and spreading awareness about politics and also the demolition of single regulating power. Disadvantages include unequal distribution of political power, interference of states in critical policies as determined by the central government, and also internal conflicts within the states. Moreover, the positive aspects of federalism overshadow the disadvantages.

Short Essay on Federalism 150 Words in English

Short Essay on Federalism is usually given to classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Federalism means the coexistence of a central administrative authority and state or local administrative units in their respective areas. Federalism is an important part of a nation’s political structure by allowing the governing authorities to work separately.

Federalism has a direct influence on a country’s fiscal policy, the effectiveness of the government, and economic development. It also allows provision for innovative ideas, democratic views, and unification of unprecedented powers.

Federalism allows the states to have greater freedom and take individual decisions within their respective provinces. The Central government can concentrate more on national issues and international relations. The active participation of citizens results in greater awareness about their political and civil rights with a sense of national unity. Differential state power and internal issues often worsen the federation, but the merits of federalism are way more than the demerits.

10 Lines on Federalism in English

Federalism has two sets of government, one at a regional level and the other at a national level.
Federalism includes dual citizenship, which means the citizens are part of both the country and the state.
Each level of government has particular sources of revenue for ensuring stability.
The role of the constitution is very important, and there is no scope for arbitrary changes without the mutual consent of the central and state governments.
The central and state governments have their jurisdiction.
There is no interference of the states in the decisions of the central government.
The states can function independently but are answerable to the central government.
Federalism is solely based on democratic rules.
Federalism unites various states and other governing units over a geographical area.
Federalism involves the creation of new laws, regionalism, and economic development with disparities between different regions of a country.

FAQ’s on Federalism Essay

Question 1. What is the importance of federalism?

Answer: Federalism includes the citizens’ opinions and views are taken into consideration and balance the internal relationships within the states, and acts as a buffer to external conflicts.

Question 2. How does federalism affect the state governments?

Answer: The boon of federalism to the state and local governments is that they can function on their own, but they have to compromise as certain powers are given to the central authority, and it can interfere in the state government decisions.

Question 3. What is the effect of federalism on the Indian economy?

Answer: All the economic reforms and various economic policymaking developments take place due to the Indian Federal system.

Question 4. What is the effect of Covid-19 on the Indian federal system?

Answer: The central government has implemented various new reforms in different domains of the Indian economy, although the global pandemic has been a severe threat to this federal system.

Picture Dictionary
English Speech
English Slogans
English Letter Writing
English Essay Writing
English Textbook Answers
Types of Certificates
ICSE Solutions
Selina ICSE Solutions
ML Aggarwal Solutions
HSSLive Plus One
HSSLive Plus Two
Kerala SSLC
Distance Education

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

Essay Database >
Essay Examples >
Essays Topics >
Essay on Government

Good Example Of American Federalism Essay

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Government , Federalism , America , Policy , Nation , Economics , Politics , United States

Words: 1250

Published: 03/02/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

This essay has been written by Name of Student of Class of Student of Name of College

American Federalism has progressed through the course of history. Balance of power between the state and the national government has shifted significantly on a varied pattern, however, from the start of the twentieth century, national government got more power and expanded its role. The expansion in the role of federal government continue in the twenty-first century. There are factors that have allowed the concept of federalism to shape the American political behavior and American policies are directly influenced by the relationship between the US federal government and the state. All such factors and the policies are the source of growth for American federalism. During the first 150 years (from 1789 to 1945) of America as a republic, America had dual federalism (Moore, 1912). American constitution had provisions for two types of government, the state government and the national government. The national government dealt with the issues pertaining to foreign policy, national defence and commerce. The state was responsible for all the local issues to include criminal laws and economic regulations. During this era, both state and national governments operated in their own spheres and distinct areas of jurisdiction with little overlapping where required. Few disputes that led to the initiation of civil war from 1861 to 1865 were caused by the dual federalism. People in the South believed that important decisions as legality of slavery was the task of only the federal government. People who believed in the rights of states opined that the state had more authority over federal government as it was state government that ratified the constitution to create a federal government. As a result of more powers vested in federal government, many states in the South separated from the Union to protect their rights. Abraham Lincoln and people in the North believed in the Union and victory in the civil war strengthened the federal government and closed this debate forever. After the civil war, the fourteenth amendment was ratified, and it included the clauses that clearly limited the state powers and gave protection to the basic rights of a citizen. First clause declared the responsibility of the state to not to deny any citizen of America, the privileges and immunities entitled to him as an American citizen. Second clause put limitations on state from depriving citizens of their legal rights. Clause three provided equal protection of law to all citizens of America. At the start of twenty first century, two things changed the nature of politics and government in America and federal government got enhanced and more powerful role (Moore, 1912). First was the industrialization of the national economy which suited for handling by the federal government. Regulatory role of federal government, thus, gradually increased from start of twenty-first century. Second was the emergence of America as the global power due to the huge economy and global economic supremacy (ushistory.org, 2014). The globalization added to the centralization of powers in the federal government. Great depression of 1929 was the most severe economic jolt to the American economy that caused many people lose their jobs and fail many businesses. President Roosevelt initiated the new programs and policies for the revival of the economy and to stop any further losses to the economy. The new programs included banking regulations and a variety of programs for poverty alleviation. Roosevelt also introduced the individual social security plan. Federal government grew in leaps in order to ensure implementation of these programs (SparkNotes Editors, 2010). Federalism took the new shape of cooperative federalism after the World War II. Period from 1945 to 1969 is termed as a period in which federal government and state governments have been closely collaborating with each other on a variety of issues (ushistory.org, 2014). Both state and federal government adopted an integrated approach, and the state governments completed many state and local programs with the assistance of the federal government. After 1970s, it took the form of new federalism as the federal government grew more powerful. Political leaders and scholars argued for giving back the powers to the states. Under the new federalism, states regained some powers but federal government still enjoyed the most important and powerful position. President Richard Nixon during his period from 1969 to 1974, supported the new federalism and since then, every President of America continues to support the transfer of more powers to the states (SparkNotes Editors, 2010). Concept of American federalism has affected the American political behavior and has greatly shaped the American policies. Family is the first factor that shapes the political behavior. People tend to vote the way of their parents as families have everlasting influence on youth in developing their political outlook. However, when people grow old, they may adopt to a divergent view from their families. Second factor is the gender as women got the right to vote only in 1920. More women tended to vote Republicans and not Democrats, however, by 1960s; most of the women shifted their opinion in the favor of Democrat. Very recently women have strongly supported the Democrats as they think Democrats are more supportive on women issues. Religion is the third factor shaping the political behavior. Christian coalition has more than two million members and they make a difference through their vote for a particular party. Jewish voters support the Democrats, Catholics show flexibility on economic issues and tend to support more conservative candidates for the office. Race and Ethnicity is the fourth factor that affects the political behavior of the people. African Americans are more Democrats, and recent two elections have proved the same. Latinos also tend to vote for Democrats. Cuban Americans support Republicans while Mexican Americans vote for Democrats. Region is the fifth factor that shapes the political behavior of the people. People on the coast are more liberal than people living in the center of America. People from Southern states vote for Republicans. These factors are merely the indicators, and there are always exceptions. There are two factors that have improved the relationship between states and American federal government and has contributed to the creation of national policies. First factor is putting limits on the powers of federal government and second factor is giving states the increasing powers. Devolution of powers to the states is equivalent to putting limits on federal powers. Decentralization of authority in the states makes states more powerful and federal government otherwise, however, the balance in the distribution of authority and power is essential to make a workable and sustained political environment. Welfare reforms of 1996 allowed states to spend the federal funds at the places of their choice and as deemed necessary by the states. Such decentralization of powers has helped in improving relations between the states and federal government. The states are more effective in their areas as they understand the issues and the circumstances. However, federal government uses a number of ways to ensure states follow the given policy and guidelines. Also, congress can order the states to follow the given policies and if required, can withhold the funds of states not following the given rules of business.

Moore, John Bassett.(1912). Four Phases of American Development; Federalism-Democracy-Imperialism-Expansion. Library of Congress.America. SparkNotes Editors. (2010). SparkNote on Federalism. Retrieved May 14, 2014, from http://www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/american-government/federalism/ Ushistory.org. (2014). What Factors Shape Political Attitudes? Retrieved May 15, 2014, from http://www.ushistory.org/gov/4b.asp

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 1826

This paper is created by writer with

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Replication reports, quartz reports, tube reports, serum reports, antigen reports, incision reports, ordination reports, deadline reports, wheel reports, curve reports, arrangement reports, investment college essays, catiline essays, viciousness essays, spider man essays, banned books essays, birds nest essays, zambon essays, mark mcgwire essays, being a nurse essays, business ethics recommendation course work example, example of case study on solution, example of essay on homework 4 and 5, free report on operational management, essay on the comprehensive economic and trade agreement ceta, free a visit to the arbutus volunteer fire department inc report sample, free critical thinking about and called is by her lovers last name, good example of mavericks research paper, anthropology research papers examples, knowledge management course works example, free consumer essay example, good essay about what liability in law entails, good literature review on titus andronicus, free essay on laketa young, sample essay on a comparison of professions, free mission and vision statement business plan example, free essay about investigation of the effects of classroom environments on the subjective experience, good example of a famous manager lee iacocca term paper, good example of do people who study abroad become more successful essay, example of report on enzymes in consumer products lactaid and diastix, facts case studies examples, sample book review on rememory in azadeh moavenis lipstick jihad.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Share full article

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Moral Limits of Bankruptcy Law

The torso of a man in a white shirt and tie is visible through a window, bordered by blinds.

By Melissa B. Jacoby

Ms. Jacoby is the author of the forthcoming book “Unjust Debts: How Our Bankruptcy System Makes America More Unequal.”

When Purdue Pharma filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019 , it had over a billion dollars in the bank and owed no money to lenders. But it also had the Sacklers, its owners, who were eager to put behind them allegations that they played a leading role in the national opioid epidemic.

The United States Supreme Court is now considering whether the bankruptcy system should have given this wealthy family a permanent shield against civil liability. But there is a bigger question at stake, too: Why is a company with no lenders turning to the federal bankruptcy system in response to accusations of harm and misconduct?

The maker of OxyContin is one in a long line of companies that have turned Chapter 11 into a legal Swiss Army knife, tackling problems that are a mismatch for its rules. Managing costly and sprawling litigation through bankruptcy can be well intentioned. But Chapter 11 was designed around the goal of helping financially distressed businesses restructure loans and other contract obligations.

If companies instead turn to bankruptcy to permanently and comprehensively cap liability for wrongdoing — the objective not only of Purdue Pharma but also of many other entities over recent decades — they can shortchange the rights of individuals seeking accountability for corporate coverups of toxic products and other wrongdoing. And in a country that relies on lawsuits and the civil justice system to deter corporate malfeasance, permanently capping liability using a procedure focused primarily on debt and money could be making us less safe.

In 1978, a bipartisan group of lawmakers enacted sweeping reforms to American bankruptcy law. To enhance economic value and keep viable businesses alive for the benefit of workers and other stakeholders, these changes gave companies more protection and control in bankruptcy. This new bankruptcy code also made it easier to alter the legal rights of creditors during and after bankruptcy without their consent.

To provide more sweeping protection to a distressed but viable company, the new bankruptcy laws also expanded the definition of “creditor” to include people allegedly injured by the business. Yet the rules governing Chapter 11 were drafted primarily with loans and contracts, not large numbers of harmed individuals, in mind.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

Federalism Advantages and Disadvantages Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of a federal system of government. It is thus divided into an introduction, advantages, disadvantages and finally, a reference list.

Introduction

Federalism is a political philosophy where a number of parties are conjugated together by an agreement (Pierre, 2003). Federalism is a type of public administration system where power is allocated between a national or central government and constituent or provincial political units. Both governments derive their powers from a constitution. A federal government can either be centralized where the central government has broad powers compared to state or provincial powers, or a decentralized one where the scope of authority for the provincial government is comprehensive.

A federal system has a greater scope for diversity and experimentation. Some states are more advanced than others, and this offers a platform for the federal government to experiment different social policies that can later be adopted. It allows development for unique and innovative methods of eliminating social, economic and political problems (Shafritz et al., 2008). A good example is Australia where Victoria State was the first to introduce compulsory wearing of seatbelts, and Queensland State which introduced a very innovative hospital management system.

Uniform currency system is easy to create and manage. Common currency saves minting and production cost through utilization of a common central bank. Uniform currency stimulates economic growth since it favors ease of trade. Trade increases since as a result of elimination of exchange rates that keep changing from time to time. Incase one state experiences some economic hardships, the effects are absorbed by the rest of the states, and this is advantageous since its currency value would have decreased significantly if it had a different currency. A good example is that of Canadian states, where they trade more with each other than with the United States (Shafritz et al., 2008).

A federal system must consider the different ethnic or cultural groups. Federal system allows people to differ from one another but is united by common goals and benefits. It must protect the minority and special groups. Different groups are allowed to maintain their cultural diversity and individuality, for instance Massachusetts did not have to adopt the ways of South Carolina and vice versa. A good example was constitution enactment in Nigeria that forbids any form of discrimination against a particular ethnic tribe, religion and political opinion.

Disadvantages

Individual states lose their identity to a degree under the title of United States. In some cases, individual states have to wait for the approval of their legislative statutes from the federal government there by, compromising their independence. A good example was in Canada where Nova Scotia and New Brunswick provinces had strong identities but had to loose them for the sake of Canadian federal government (Pierre, 2003).

Local interests are sometimes sacrificed on the altar of federalism. When federal government has more powers, local interests have no priority over national interest. An example where local interest was compromised was in the formation of Canadian federalism, where Quebec province was unwilling to join the central government due to their minority but had to compromise (Pierre, 2003).

Rebellion against authority is a constant threat although this is counter balanced with a strong federal military. The state is in charge of matters that affect the nation as a whole such as national security. In health and education, rebellion may arise if it doesn’t consider local concern as national concerns. Rebellion may arise when a state feels neglected or not protected. Tension may arise when funds are allocated unfairly among states on various projects. A good example was the 1788-1787 Shays’ armed rebellion in central and western Massachusetts where farmers were protesting against the federal government for improper dealing in debt administration (Khan, 2008)

Khan, H. A. (2008). Introduction to Public Administration New York: University Press of America.

Pierre, J. (2003). Handbook of Public Administration . New York: Sage publications.

Shafritz, J., Russel, E. W. and Borick, C. (2008). Introducing public administration . (Ed) London: Longman.

American Federalism: Why It Is Good for the Nation?
Federalism and Policy Formulation
Costs and Benefits of Federalism
Capitalism and Industrialization in the “Communist Manifesto” by Marx
How Best To Ensure US-Style Global Capitalism
Will China Become Democratic in Near Future?
Problematic Aspects of the USA Foreign Policy
Modern Conservatism Political Ideology
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, November 22). Federalism Advantages and Disadvantages. https://ivypanda.com/essays/federalism-advantages-and-disadvantages/

"Federalism Advantages and Disadvantages." IvyPanda , 22 Nov. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/federalism-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Federalism Advantages and Disadvantages'. 22 November.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Federalism Advantages and Disadvantages." November 22, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/federalism-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

1. IvyPanda . "Federalism Advantages and Disadvantages." November 22, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/federalism-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Federalism Advantages and Disadvantages." November 22, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/federalism-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

IMAGES

The Evolution of American Federalism
Modern American Federalism
Federalism in the US
Federalism essay
Chapter 3 American Federalism
Write an essay on federalism in english

VIDEO

Nigerian and American Federalism
American Federalism Panel
Responsible Citizenship -- Tocqueville on the Development of American Democracy
Essay on Federalism In Nepal. Very Important Essay especially for BLE, SEE students
That This Nation May Endure--The Need for Political Regionalism
Federalism and Amendments

COMMENTS

The Federalist No. 1: Annotated
Originally printed in newspapers in New York and elsewhere, The Federalist Papers are now foundational documents of American history and political thought. Federalist No. 1, written by Alexander Hamilton using the pseudonym "Publius", began as a response to two earlier essays written against the ratification (by "Cato" and "Brutus ...
What is American federalism?
What precisely is American federalism? In their seminal work on federal jurisdiction, Felix Frankfurter and Wilber Katz allude to a "dynamic struggle" between federal and state power, the ebb and flow of competing, sometimes conflicting, spheres of federal and state power and influence. In many respects, the story of American government is ...
The Evolution of American Federalism
Cooperative federalism is now in place. It emphasizes on shared policy formulation between the respective governments. The essay discusses how federalism has evolved since James Madison wrote The Federalist, 51 and the effects of Federalism on American politics. It also explains my opinion on whether I would construct a federalist or unified ...
Federalism and the Constitution
Intro.7.3 Federalism and the Constitution. Another basic concept embodied in the Constitution is federalism, which refers to the division and sharing of power between the national and state governments. 1. By allocating power among state and federal governments, the Framers sought to establish a unified national government of limited powers ...
Federalism and the Constitution
Footnotes &# 1 60; Jump to essay-1 See Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844, 857R 1 1;58 (20 1 4) (Among the background principles . . . that our cases have recognized are those grounded in the relationship between the Federal Government and the States under our Constitution. &# 1 60; Jump to essay-2 The Federalist No. 45 (James Madison) (The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the ...
The Federalist Papers (article)
Overview. The Federalist Papers was a collection of essays written by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton in 1788. The essays urged the ratification of the United States Constitution, which had been debated and drafted at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. The Federalist Papers is considered one of the most ...
Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History
The Federalist, commonly referred to as the Federalist Papers, is a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788.The essays were published anonymously, under the pen name "Publius," in various New York state newspapers of the time. The Federalist Papers were written and published to urge New Yorkers to ratify the proposed ...
Federalism
federalism, mode of political organization that unites separate states or other polities within an overarching political system in a way that allows each to maintain its own integrity.Federal systems do this by requiring that basic policies be made and implemented through negotiation in some form, so that all the members can share in making and executing decisions.
3.2 The Evolution of American Federalism
Figure 3.11 The use of layer and marble cakes for understanding federalism was popularized in the 1950s by political scientist Morton Grodzins. In this metaphor, dual federalism is represented by the layer cake, showing the clearly defined jurisdictional divisions between national, state, and local governments.
Contemporary American Federalism
Introduction. Federalism is defined as a system that is used to govern a single territory by using two levels of government; national or central government and state governments (Janda, Berry and Goldman 88; Schütze 4; Zimmerman 5; Bianco and Canon 83). The American federal system has a national government that governs all the states within ...
Christian G Fritz, Monitoring American Federalism: The History of State
In Monitoring American Federalism, Christian Fritz makes the case that this view of interposition is too narrow, as a matter of both historical accuracy and normative constitutional theory. To Fritz, there is a divide between the interposition invoked by Calhoun and his successors, which involved state action to thwart national authority, and ...
Modern American Federalism
Modern American Federalism Essay. Modern federalism is at crossroads in maintaining balance between national and state government. Development and evolution of democracy over the centuries has been focusing on devolution of central powers of government to increase independence of the local states. Currently, since the United States has ...
Federalism and the United States Constitution
The American system of federalism, or power-sharing between the US and state governments, barely made it into the Constitution. ... Federalist leader James Madison wrote in the "Federalist Papers" that the system of government created by the document would be "neither wholly national nor wholly federal." Madison argued that federalism ...
Federalism in the United States
Federalism is the system in the U.S. government in which power is distributed and shared between the federal government and state governments. It was created through many different aspects of the ...
3.5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Federalism
THE BENEFITS OF FEDERALISM. Among the merits of federalism are that it promotes policy innovation and political participation and accommodates diversity of opinion. On the subject of policy innovation, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis observed in 1932 that "a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and ...
Federalism Essay
This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of federalism, examining its definition, historical origins, theoretical underpinnings, and practical applications. By delving into its key features, advantages, and challenges, we aim to elucidate the intricate mechanisms and implications of federalism in modern governance.
128 Federalism Essay Topics & Examples
In short, federalism is a mode of government that combines general and regional governments. Your argumentative federalism essay can focus on federalism's importance. Or, you can show your understanding of a unique system of governance in the United States. In this article, you will find 74 excellent federalism essay topics and research ideas.
Repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment
Jump to essay-1 Nat'l Comm'n on Law Observance and Enf't, Enforcement of the Prohibition Laws of the United States, H.R. Doc ... (noting that the Eighteenth Amendment caused a major crisis in the theory and practice of American federalism, as the national government, which lacked the courts or police necessary for implementing the ...
The Significance and Impact of the Great Compromise
Essay Example: The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, was a seminal moment in the formation of the United States Constitution, marking a pivotal resolution in the contentious debates that took place during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. ... The principles of representation and federalism enshrined in the ...
Federalism Essays
The choice of Federalism essay topics is vast and varied. From the comparison between Federalism and Unitarism to the impact of Federalism on public policy, intergovernmental relations, political parties, cultural diversity, and global challenges, there are many important and relevant topics to explore. ... How American Federalism Helps and ...
Advantages and Disadvantages of Federalism
Federalism also comes with drawbacks. Chief among them are economic disparities across states, race-to-the-bottom dynamics (i.e., states compete to attract business by lowering taxes and regulations), and the difficulty of taking action on issues of national importance.
The United States Federalism and Political Culture Essay
Huberfield characterizes federalism as a system that enhances "sovereignty, accountability, and protection of liberty and equality" (247). It can be argued that federalist policies are best suited for the United States because they align with such national values as liberty, equality, and capitalism. We will write a custom essay on your topic.
Essay on Federalism for Students and Children in English
Long Essay on Federalism is usually given to classes 7, 8, 9, and 10. ... In the USA, after the formation of the country and the American Civil War, the national government came into power with the rise of dual and state-centered federalism along with the origin of neo-federalism. In France, the whole plan of the federal government was to ...
Free Sample Essay On American Federalism
This essay has been written by Name of Student of Class of Student of Name of College. American Federalism has progressed through the course of history. Balance of power between the state and the national government has shifted significantly on a varied pattern, however, from the start of the twentieth century, national government got more ...
Opinion
The use of Chapter 11 to permanently cap liability for a range of potentially liable parties attracted the attention of the Catholic Church. Since the 2000s, 35 dioceses have filed for Chapter 11 ...
Federalism Advantages and Disadvantages
Federalism is a political philosophy where a number of parties are conjugated together by an agreement (Pierre, 2003). Federalism is a type of public administration system where power is allocated between a national or central government and constituent or provincial political units. Both governments derive their powers from a constitution.

The Federalist No. 1: Annotated

Weekly Newsletter

Get Our Newsletter

The Uneven Costs of Cross-Country Connectivity

A Potash Primer

Support JSTOR Daily

Foundations of U.S. Federalism

American Federalism: Prerevolutionary Underpinnings

The Impact of the Revolutionary War: An Impetus to Federalism and the Failure of the Articles of Confederation

Postrevolutionary Needs

Developing “A More Perfect Union”

Federalism In Practice: The Early Precedents

The Civil War and Reconstruction

Post Civil War: Reconstructing Federalism

Progressive Era: Federalism Grows

The Sixteenth Amendment: Taxation

The Seventeenth Amendment: Direct Election of Senators

Incorporating the Bill of Rights

Expanding Federal Power: The New Deal

Federalism Today

Related Reading: The Emergence of the American Constitutional Law Tradition

Also In This Edition

About Lee Rosenthal

About Gregory P. Joseph

Course: US history > Unit 3

The Federalist Papers

The Articles of Confederation and Constitutional Convention

What do you think?

Want to join the conversation?

Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History

History, Humanities & Social Sciences : Ask a Librarian

Table of Contents

Written constitution

Recent News

Elements maintaining union

Sign in through your institution

Christian G Fritz, Monitoring American Federalism: The History of State Legislative Resistance

Personal account

Institutional access

IP based access

Society Members

Sign in through society site

Sign in using a personal account

Viewing your signed in accounts

Signed in but can't access content

Short-term Access

Email alerts

Affiliations

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Federalism and the United States Constitution

How Federalism Came to the Constitution

Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation

A Great Debate Over Power Erupts

Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

Federalism Wins the Day

The Debate Over the Bill of Rights

Lesson Plan: Federalism in the United States

States' Rights and the Tenth Amendment

Description

3.5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Federalism

THE BENEFITS OF FEDERALISM

Get Connected!

THE DRAWBACKS OF FEDERALISM

Link to Learning

The Significance and Impact of the Great Compromise

Cite this page

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Essays on Federalism

Comparison between Federalism and Unitarism

Role of Federalism in promoting democracy and protecting individual rights

Impact of Federalism on public policy

Role of Federalism in addressing social and economic inequality

Impact of Federalism on intergovernmental relations

Impact of Federalism on political parties and electoral systems

Role of Federalism in promoting cultural diversity and minority rights

Impact of Federalism on public administration and governance

Role of Federalism in addressing global challenges

How Did Federalism Guard Against Tyranny

Understanding Federalism: The Division of Power Between The National and State Governments

The Use of Federalism in The Philippines Under The Administration of President Duterte