Does Federalism Hinder or Help the States?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is federalism, or the division of powers between the federal government and the state governments. This site provided the following information on federalism. 

Another basic concept embodied in the Constitution is federalism, which refers to the division and sharing of power between the national and state governments. By allocating power among state and federal governments, the Framers sought to establish a unified national government of limited powers while maintaining a distinct sphere of autonomy in which state governments could exercise a general police power. Although the Framers sought to preserve liberty by diffusing power, Justices and scholars have noted that federalism has other advantages, including that it allows individual states to experiment with novel government programs as laboratories of democracy and increases the accountability of elected government officials to citizens.

Although the text of the Constitution does not clearly delineate many of the boundaries between the powers of the federal and state governments, the Supreme Court has frequently invoked certain constitutional provisions when determining that Congress has exceeded its constitutional powers and infringed upon state sovereignty. One well-known provision, regarded by the Court as both a shield and sword to thwart federal encroachment, is the Tenth Amendment, which provides 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…. Other notable provisions addressing Congress’s power relative to the states that the Court has debated include the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, which establishes federal law as superior to state law, the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, which grants Congress the authority to legislate on matters concerning interstate commerce; and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants Congress the power to enforce that Amendment’s guarantees against the states through the enactment of appropriate legislation. More broadly, federalism principles also undergird many Supreme Court decisions interpreting individual rights and the extent to which the Court should federalize, for example, the rights afforded to state criminal defendants. But judges and scholars disagree on how basic principles of federalism should be realized, and a key point of controversy is whether the judiciary should enforce the interests of the states against the Federal Government or leave the resolution of such key questions about the relationship between federal and state power to the political process.

With the above cited information in mind, this essay will share a recent example about how the federal government can hinder or help the states. In her article published at The Daily Signal, Virginia Allen reported on the recent remarks of Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy about the differences in how “development and extraction of resources in Alaska” were managed by the Biden administration and the Trump administration. 

“Trump is all about opportunity. In other words, no limits, giving Alaska the opportunity to develop its resources, build things, market things, exactly the way it was supposed to be,” the Alaska Republican governor said.

“Under [President Joe Biden], it was the opposite. They were violently determined not to allow anything to happen in Alaska.”

“They put the environmentalists first, not the people or the needs of the state or country first,” Dunleavy said of the Biden administration, while talking with The Daily Signal at the Miami Security Forum….

Alaska: Resource Rich

Alaska was the only state to receive its own executive order on Trump’s first day back in the White House. The order, titled “Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential,” again made it the policy of the United States to “fully avail itself of Alaska’s vast lands and resources,” including Alaska’s liquefied natural gas.

Trump’s order “means hope” for Alaska because it compels the federal government to take full advantage of the state’s natural resources, from timber to mining, thus increasing investment in Alaska, the governor explained.

Trump’s executive order to further develop Alaskan oil resources is significant following the conflict with Iran that has rocked global oil markets. Iran threatens ships moving through the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil shipping lane.

Japan, for example, imports about 90% of its oil from the Persian Gulf. It takes, under normal circumstances, about 20 days for an oil shipment to reach Japan from the Middle East, but it would take just eight days for an oil shipment to reach Japan from Alaska, Dunleavy explained.

National Security

In addition to holding a wealth of natural resources, Alaska is also a critical U.S. national security asset due to its proximity to Russia and its location in the Arctic.

Both Russia and China demonstrate a keen interest in the Arctic. Russia, in particular, is extracting the region’s natural resources for economic purposes and asserting military dominance there.

In just the past 10 years in the Arctic, Russia has “revitalized Soviet-era bases, deployed missile defense systems, invested in domain awareness capabilities, increased aerial and maritime patrols, and stepped up its exercise schedule,” according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

While Russia has about 40 icebreakers, special ships that can navigate the Arctic’s icy waters, the U.S. has had only two, one of which never fully worked, according to Dunleavy. However, the Big Beautiful Bill, which Trump signed last year, included funding to procure an estimated 17 new icebreakers.

The new icebreakers “will position us as a year-round Arctic nation where we have icebreaking going on, we have shipping going on,” Dunleavy said, calling the investment “very, very important.”

While “a lot of administrations have fallen asleep regarding Alaska,” Dunleavy said, referring to the state’s natural resources and key security location, “the Trump administration has not.”

The effect on Anchorage shows in the number of schools and businesses that have closed over the past few years. When there are no high-paying, energy-related jobs in Alaska, employees and families move out of Alaska. This means that there are no adults to visit the businesses or students to attend the schools. Hopefully, Alaska, under the Trump administration, can get the jobs flowing to Alaska once again.

What Signals Were Sent With the Election of Donald Trump?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the signals sent by Americans in the last presidential election. President-elect Donald Trump’s presidential victory sent some definite signals about the desires of American citizens. One signal was about the economy: the people believed that Trump could do a better job with the economy than could Kamala Harris. A second signal was about border security: again, American voters thought that Trump could do a better job of securing the border than could the Border Czar for the past three years. A third signal was about energy: the American people want affordable energy instead of the narratives pedaled by environmentalists. Jason Isaac of The Daily Signal wrote about the third signal. 

For decades, radical environmental groups like Greenpeace have bene employing apocalyptic rhetoric while offering so-called solutions that would make energy more expensive and make life worse for working-class Americans. This election was a rejection of that rhetoric and an embrace of common sense.

These environmental extremists tell us that Americans reject fossil fuels. But in the month before the election, polling found that 4 out of 5 swing-state voters believed that domestic oil and gas production could help lower energy costs for American consumers. Rising costs were a big concern for voters, and the cost of energy impacts everything from grocery bills to transportation.

Voters faced a clear choice between Trump, who enthusiastically embraced the “Drill, baby, drill” mantra, and Vice President Kamala Harris….

If Democrats learn anything from their electoral defeat, it should be that activist groups like Greenpeace actually speak for a small group of elites – not for the American people.

Unfortunately, Democrats have spent years being beholden to extremist environmentalists….  

These environmental activists claim to be speaking on behalf of the world, yet simultaneously ignore the global impacts of their actions. If they were paying attention, they would recognize that killing fossil fuel projects like refineries and pipelines in the United States does not stop them from being built. It merely ensures that they’ll be built in other countries with significantly weaker environmental policies than the United States.

One entity that does understand this dynamic is China, which has benefited greatly from the loud resistance efforts of Greenpeace and others. Without sufficient pipeline capacity in North America, Canadian oil that should be refined in the United States is often shipped to China instead. Crude oil processing hit record highs in China in 2023, and the country is expected to continue building out its refining capacity.

This Chinese refinery boom has led to China being a net exporter of diesel, jet fuel, and home heating oil for the first time in the nation’s history. Because China lacks meaningful pollution controls, this increase is dangerous for the global environment. It’s also dangerous for the American economy, as this economic activity is benefiting the Chinese government rather than American companies and workers.

Meanwhile, the United States has become a global leader in environmental stewardship. Over the past five decades, we have reduced pollution by nearly 80%, achieving safe and clean air that’s only imaginable in other places round the world, while also being No. 1 in access to clean and safe drinking water. And we’ve done this while growing our energy production and our population, proving that we have responsible energy production that doesn’t compromise on environmental quality.

America is the most responsible energy producer on the planet, and the world needs more energy to eradicate poverty, not less. Access to affordable American energy could serve those in need far better than any alternative.

In spite of this, Greenpeace is doubling down on its own failures….

Obama's Big Energy Lie

Barack Obama recently announced "an expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration" in some areas off the coasts of the United States to "sustain economic growth and produce jobs" . I do not trust the man; neither do I believe what he says. It appears that I am joined by many other people who don't believe what he says. Here are some quotes from newspapers across the nation. 1) The Los Angeles Times : "President Obama … unveiled a controversial offshore drilling plan Wednesday that was driven largely by the politics of his agenda on energy and climate change - not by hopes of changing the nation's energy supply." 2) The Washington Post : "President Obama's decision … reflects a high-stakes calculation by the White House: splitting the difference on the most contentious energy issues could help secure a bipartisan climate deal this year." 3) The New York Times : "The proposal is also intended to … help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation." In a report posted on April 1, 2010, Conn Carroll wrote, "In fact, if anything, the policies announced by President Obama yesterday will actually decrease and delay future U.S. oil production. The President actually canceled four lease sales off the Alaska coast that were planned to begin producing oil within the next two years, delayed a planned lease off Virginia until at least 2012, and placed some areas off limits for at least seven years. Go back and look at President Obama's actual announcement again: he only promised new exploration off the Atlantic coast. There is absolutely no guarantee that any new drilling will ever occur…." Carroll explained that President Obama must have a different agenda than actually developing new energy sources that would create more private sector jobs as well as needed revenues for both the states and the nation. He pointed out that we only need to listen to other members of the Obama Administration in order to understand what their true goals are. He quoted Energy Secretary Steven Chu as stating, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Carroll wrote that "Europeans were paying $8 a gallon for gas at the pump" at the time that Chu made that statement. Carroll also pointed out that the Obama Administration has taken actions in other parts of the nation to curtail energy production and to increase regulation of carbon emissions. He suggested that all these actions being taken by the Obama Administration are all part of the plan to get a cap and trade bill passed. After fighting Obama and the Congress for a year to keep Obamacare from being forced on us, we must recognize that they do not have the good of America at heart. The progressives who are now in control of our nation are continuing with their evil plan to enslave Americans. They told us that they wanted to "fundamentally transform America" - and they are in the process of doing it!