Tag Archives: enumerated powers

A Healthy Fetish For Federalism

18 Monday Apr 2016

Posted by in Federalism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

outrage

When I say I’m a federalist, I mean that I support a system in which powers are divided between different levels of government. Federalism establishes co-sovereignty between a central government and regional governments. It does not mean that the federal government is always dominant as is sometimes suggested: the Supremacy Clause under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution covers conflicts of law between the federal government and lower levels of government. Elsewhere, however, the Constitution places strict limits on the powers of the central government by defining an enumerated set of federal powers. All other powers reside with the people or their state governments, ideally constitutional republics in their own right.

Federalism is thought to minimize conflict within a nation by allowing law to be formulated differently within sub-jurisdictions. In this way, it has a limited ability to accommodate different political and social preferences, and it creates a de facto laboratory within which experiments in governance can be assessed. Whether one approves of a particular experiment always depends upon the nature of the question, and experiments imposing limits on individual rights are unconstitutional. Individual rights established by the Constitution are thought to be inviolable and to supersede any federal or state legislation. We should all be absolutists about that. A federalist approach can also be a practical starting point in bringing about broader social recognition of new claims under the Constitution. There are many interesting cases, however, in which legitimate constitutional rights of different parties stand in conflict.

The federalist idea of a social laboratory across jurisdictions is very appealing. When a conflict over legal and social issues seems intractable, federalism makes it possible to see how well different approaches solve the problem. There may be a variety of interesting solutions or political compromises that can be brought to bear, and it can be easier to reach an accord at the state level. Diversity of circumstances and preferences may mean that a good solution in one state will be bad in another. So different states can try different arrangements under federalism. The results of these experiments can guide other states or even federal legislation, if it comes to that. Voters in each state have the power to reward or punish elected representatives, based on these experiments or their outcomes, or to “vote with their feet” by moving to a state that better matches their political preferences.

Today, the country is experiencing an epidemic of grievances on which there is little consensus. These cover issues related to gender identity, gay rights, polyandry, sexual consent, voting rights, due process claims, race and law enforcement, food labeling, drug legalization, censorship, assisted suicide, “micro-aggressions”, and any number of other causes célèbres. These issues may involve novel private or social arrangements, or they may necessitate a weighing of the asserted rights of an aggrieved individual or group against established rights of others protected by the Constitution. It may well be that the asserted rights of the aggrieved have a proper place in the Constitution, and if so, there might be a compelling case for protection relative to other claims. Federalism is one way this can be hashed out: a state legislates, pro or con; the legislation may be challenged in court; the courts rule whether the law is constitutional at the state level or even at the federal level. And the process may start in any number of states.

I have appealed to federalism on several issues in the past. When the rights of different parties stand in conflict, attempting to weigh different sides of an issue based on libertarian and constitutional principles does not always lead to clear-cut answers. However, laws work best when there is consensus among the governed. Political consensus may be more readily achieved at sub-national levels. That doesn’t necessarily protect the people of any state against big government solutions, high taxes or cronyism. However, at least dissenters within a state can register their dissatisfaction at the ballot box, agitate, attempt to persuade others, challenge in court, or move away.

Both left and right take absolutist views on many issues. They often find it difficult to tolerate variances à la federalism. For example, should a legitimate transgender individual be allowed to use the restroom compatible with their gender identity? The left regards that as an inviolable right, regardless of genitalia and potential threats to privacy. If you disagree, they may call you a bigot! Some on the right, however, regard transgenderism as perverse and not worthy of constitutional protection. Both are absolutist positions. There are, in fact, legitimate reasons for taking either side in the restroom debate, as I attempted to outline here last week. Under such circumstances, federalism respects the political balance within any jurisdiction and allows a way forward, short of resorting to federal legislation, which might well be impossible to achieve.

Federalism is usually associated with strong “states rights”, which are sometimes criticized on historical grounds because slavery was often characterized as a “states rights” issue. The horrific treatment of blacks under slavery was obviously based on an arbitrary distinction that should never have been tolerated under our Constitution; ownership of human chattel should never have been defended as a “right”, but it took a civil war and the Thirteenth Amendment to end it officially. The discrimination mandated under Jim Crow laws was based on the same arbitrary distinction, but it took another 100 years after the Civil War to end those laws through enactment of the Civil Rights Act. I grant that federal action was necessary in both cases. However, few of the challenges we face today are based on such arbitrary distinctions. Rather, they often involve constitutional ambiguity and legitimate concerns over protected rights. So let the experiments, the evolution of opinion and the court challenges play out. That is the essence of federalism. It helps us to muddle on through.

Nullifying The Federal Blob

17 Tuesday Feb 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

nullify-obamacare_big

When must a state acquiesce to the demands of the federal government? The question is not as straightforward as many believe. The U.S. Constitution is fairly explicit in “enumerating” the federal government’s powers, which at least tells us that the answer must be “sometimes,” not simply always or never. Powers not specifically granted to the federal  government are generally reserved by the states. This is the principle of federalism, but in practice it leaves plenty of room for disagreement. The federal government has grown enormously in size and in the scope of its activities. It seems inevitable that tensions will arise over specific questions about the limits of federal authority. And over time, in response to challenges, the courts have interpreted some of the enumerated powers more expansively. There is an ongoing debate over what avenues, in addition to the courts, states may follow in challenging federal power. Some have framed it as a debate over state “nullification” of specific federal laws versus a constitutional convention to establish clearer limits on the reach of federal power.

Recently, nullification has been all the rage, as this article in The Hill makes clear. So-called “mandates” often require states to enforce federal laws, which is likely to provoke some objections. And major pieces of federal legislation have become so complex that details must be sorted out by the administrative agencies in charge of implementation. This involves lots of rule-making and delegation of authority that has frequently imposed burdens on state governments. States are increasingly refusing to cooperate. From The Hill:

“The legislative onslaught, which includes bills targeting federal restrictions on firearms, experimental treatments and hemp, reflects growing discord between the states and Washington, state officials say. …

Friction between the states and the federal government dates back to the nation’s earliest days. But there has been an explosion of bills in the last year, according to the Los Angeles-based Tenth Amendment Center, which advocates for the state use of nullification to tamp down on overzealous regulation.”

Later in the same article, the author discusses an effort to organize a constitutional convention:

“… conservatives are pushing for states to invoke Article 5 of the Constitution and hold a ‘convention of states’ to restrict the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. The group Citizens for Self-Government is leading the charge, and three states — Alaska, Georgia and Florida — have already passed resolutions calling for the convention. Another 26 states are considering legislation this year, according to the group’s president, Mark Meckler. It would take 34 states to call a convention. At the convention, Meckler said the states would work to pass amendments that impose fiscal restraints, regulatory restrictions and term limits on federal officials, including members of the Supreme Court. ‘We’ll have [Article 5] applications pending in 41 states within the next few weeks,’ he said. ‘The goal is to hold a convention in 2016.’”

Libertarians are split on the issues of nullification and a constitutional convention. The latter  is addressed by A. Barton Hinkle in Reason, who questions the necessity of a convention and sees certain risks in the effort, such as new provisions that could “backfire”, the possibility of a “runaway convention”, and efforts to riddle the Constitution with “primary laws,” rather than merely improving it as a framework for governing how we are governed.

As for nullification, Robert Levy, board chairman of The CATO Institute, distinguishes between situations in which a state is asked to enforce a federal law and those involving federal enforcement of a law deemed to be unconstitutional by a state. He asserts that states cannot resolve the latter type of dispute via nullification:

“Fans of nullification count on the states to check federal tyranny. But sometimes it cuts the other way; states are also tyrannical. Indeed, if state and local governments could invalidate federal law, Virginia would have continued its ban on inter-racial marriages; Texas might still be jailing gay people for consensual sex; and constructive gun bans would remain in effect in Chicago and elsewhere.

… If a state deems a federal law to be unconstitutional, what’s the proper remedy? The answer is straightforward. Because the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority, the remedy is a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the suspect federal regulation or statute.”

Not surprisingly, the Tenth Amendment Center strongly disagrees with the limits on nullification described by Levy:

“Levy’s entire argument rests on the idea that the federal courts possess the sole and final authority to determine the constitutionality of an act. … Levy never addresses the fundamental question facing those who oppose nullification: how does one reconcile the undeniable fact that the state ratifying conventions adopted the Constitution with the understanding that it was creating a general government with specific, limited powers and the idea that a branch of that very same federal government has the final say on the extent of its own powers? Quite simply, you can’t.”

These recent efforts to reign in the federal government are exciting. I am watching the progress of the Article 5 convention effort with great interest. I am not sure I buy into Levy’s arguments against nullification because checks on power should cut both ways: the Constitution allows states to retain powers not specifically granted to the federal government, so the states should guard those powers jealously. It matters not whether the question involves state enforcement of a federal law or a federal law that violates states rights. Likewise, powers specifically granted to the federal government should serve as a check on “state-level tyranny”. Again, that leaves plenty of room for disagreement before the courts.