We’ve been covering the branches of the federal government as organized by the Constitution of the United States. There are two entities that need to be recognized that are not part of the federal government but interact closely with it. The first is the states. The second is the people.
In the Founding Father’s eyes, the United States of America was not a single nation, but a collection of independent and sovereign states. Each of these states was comparable to a European states. Although such states as Spain, France, England, and Germany were powerful and populated, the American states did wield about as much power as the medium or small sized states outright.
A state is the lowest level of absolute government. Only states could write laws dictating morality or the punishment of crimes. Only states could claim that they represented the people since the people directly supported the states. The federal government, on the other hand, was an agreement on how to have the states interact with each other in a positive way, to unify the country against external forces, and to keep the states in perpetual peace at home.
In the consitution, originally, the states had a massive amount of influence over the federal government.
- State legislatures chose the two senators from the state. Thus, the Senate was composed of people who represented the states.
- State legislatures chose the electors in the Electoral College which chose the president.
- State legislatures could be called upon to ratify an amendment to the constitution.
- All the powers not specifically delegated to the federal government were retained by the states and the people.
Over time, these powers have been significantly weakened. By constitutional amendment, senators are now chosen by the people directly. By state laws, the people choose the electors in the Electoral College. By court rulings and bribery, the rights of the states have been infringed upon by the federal government.
Let me explain the bribery claim above. The way it works is like this. In the beginning, the states were independent of the federal government. If the federal government wrote a law that the states believed was unconstitutional, they could simply ignore it. The federal government then began funding state projects. This came without any strings attached, so the states could do pretty much whatever they wanted with the money. Of course, the states accepted the “free” money. (Really, it was taxed from the people and thus flowed in a circle through the federal government to the states.) Eventually, the federal government began attaching strings to the money. Now, the federal government has mandated certain behavior by the state governments. If the state governments do not agree, the federal government threatens to rescind funding for important projects. This is, in effect, bribery.
In the latter half of the 20th Century, the claim of “state’s rights” was synonymous with anti-black policies. The reason for this was that several Southern states wanted to write state laws that would treat blacks differently than whites. Of course, the federal government, composed of senators and representatives from states who didn’t like anti-black policies, would try to use their power, unconstitutionally, to dictate policy at the state level. So the Southern states would have to claim “state’s rights” to get their anti-black policies enacted. This fight, unfortunately, has led people to think that the only reason states would want to retain their rights would be to oppress minorities.
In reality, the states were to be a powerful check on federal government corruption and usurpation. The states were to field armies that could challenge the federal army. The states were to create courts that had more power than the federal courts. The states were to write laws that could affect people in more drastic way than federal law ever could. Thus, the claim of “state’s rights” should be seen as just as important part of our system of government as individual rights.
This follows along with the principle of local governance. The idea is that government that is close to the people that are governed is usually the best government of all. The reason is both because members of the government suffer the consequences of bad governance and also because the government is local enough and small enough that dissatisfied citizens would have their concerns heard and acted upon.
Although the states have diminished in their power, it is quite possible that states will re-assert themselves. Some of the issues that seem to be turning towards the state’s favor are:
- Education. Traditionally, the federal government has simply written checks to the states, with minor attachments. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, however, dictates that if states fail to meet certain criteria, the federal government will seize control of the schools. If schools are failing in a state, the state may also decline federal funding altogether. Several states are contemplating such a move as the deadline for progress draws near. Such a move could cause states to exert their power and demand that the federal government get out of the education business.
- Drug traficking. Ever since the early 1900′s, the federal government has vigorously pursued an anti-drug agenda. Some of the things the federal government has done has gone way beyond any constitutional power that the president or congress of courts have. Some states, such as California, have passed medicinal marijuana laws that contradict federal laws on production, possession, and distribution of marijuana. In the coming years, these states could destroy the unconstitutional mechanism that the federal government uses to control the drug trade.
- Environmental laws. The federal government has broad-reaching laws governing how the environment can be used and under what circumstances. In some cases, the laws go far beyond what the state that controls the land would like. In other cases, the laws don’t go far enough or demand action that the states disagree with. Such conflicts will eventually lead to a reconciliation or a drastic reduction in the scope of federal environmental regulation in favor of leaving that power with the states.
- Interpretation of the constitution. Today, people view the Supreme Court as not only the last word on the federal constitution, but the last word on the state constitutions. This is simply an incorrect view of how constitutions are to be read. In the case of the federal government, all three branches are entitled to their own interpretations of the constitution and should act according to their interpretation. In the case of state constitutions, the states do not acquiesce the power to interpret their constitution to the federal government or the Supreme Court. Nowadays, with the fight over homosexual marriage, the treatment of prisoners of war, and abortion, states are beginning to disagree with the Supreme Court, along with the president and Congress. Should a state Supreme Court rule that the federal Supreme Court’s ruling is incorrect, then this power of the federal Supreme Court would be broken. The Supreme Court has been careful not to make a ruling that would be reversed by a state Supreme Court for this reason.
The Founding Fathers never viewed our country as a single nation, but instead, the aggregate of several smaller states. They knew that keeping the strongest government powers closer to the people was a sure way to keep it from being corrupted. Thus, the states are a powerful component of our system of government, yet another check and balance against federal usurpation and corruption.
