Evolutions of Federalism: The Tyranny of the Ever-Expanding Federal Government

The Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution to avoid the tyranny of large government. They had experienced firsthand the dangers of a unitary government with the overreaching hand of the British monarchy. Their first draft of a constitution, The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, overcorrected the problem of national power, leaving the country weak and unable to act without a national authority. Their second attempt, The Constitution, provided a stronger national government while allowing for elements of a confederation; thus, the principle of federalism was enacted. However, somewhere along the way, the country has lost its adherence and respect for this very principle that helped make America remarkable. The principles of federalism have been adulterated by a deliberate misreading of much of the Constitution and a push to accomplish goals not through the outlined system but through an overarching grab of power.  

The Constitution is, in most aspects, a deliberately vague document. The Founders, however, were specific in their view that the federal government should have limited power, as James Madison describes in Federalist 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain to the State Governments are numerous and indefinite” (p. 95). These views are evident throughout the Federalist papers, which give the clearest view that we have of the often-vague Constitution. Despite this knowledge of the intended meaning, politicians, judges, and lawmakers have used the ambiguity of the document to their own advantage. One of the first examples of this is the Supreme Court decision in McCulloch vs. Maryland, which ultimately granted the federal government powers that were not specifically stated in the Constitution—the implied powers. With this ruling, the federal government could seemingly deem any political goal as “necessary and proper” and often have in their search to expand their power. Similarly, the ruling of Gibbons v. Ogden created a precedent allowing Congress to overturn any state regulation that involved interstate commerce. Since then, the definition of interstate commerce has been used to mean basically anything, allowing the federal government to further expand their authority despite the intended meaning of the phrase. 

The most significant expansions of power have come from a deliberate misreading of the Constitution. It is difficult to effectuate national change through the traditional route. Gaining support state by state is a costly and timely task and was made so deliberately. Politicians have every incentive, however misguided, to instead create their own readings of the Constitution to use the federal government. President Franklin Roosevelt, for example, drastically changed the nature of federalism with his New Deal social programs. He never had an amendment or legitimate answer as to how he could change the nature of the country so drastically. He instead attributed these changes to the original text within the Constitution. The words of the Constitution never changed, but in creating these extensive social programs that have now been engrained into American life, the Constitution and the nature of American federalism is consequently altered. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society had similar effects. These power grabs negatively affected the country by seizing authority from the states, and therefore interfering into the everyday lives of citizens. Federalism has been so successful because states know how to best combat their own issues. Admittedly, the federal government does have some role in providing aid when the states cannot handle the issues themselves, but the extent the federal government has coerced states to comply with its interference is beyond that scope. And the issue has only become more severe with the Covid-19 pandemic. 

When facing an issue as complicated as a pandemic, federal authority to provide a unitive combative front is important but not at the sake of dispelling the principles of federalism. Some efforts, such as closing national borders and passing unemployment relief, were necessary for the federal government to employ in the beginning of the crisis. However, as time goes on and the threat of the pandemic fades, the federal government increasingly tries to usurp more power from the states. The proposed vaccine mandate, for example, proposes a decree that the federal government has no constitutional right to impose. States cannot function as “laboratories of democracy” when they are expected to pursue the same policies despite their great differences. 

Federalism has allowed for some historical injustices. The defense of states’ rights to uphold the institution of slavery and Jim Crow racism relied on the principles of federalism. Federalism can often make change seem impossible, but it relies on the will of the people.