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.

How Is Texas Doing in Its Illegal Immigration Battle?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns federalism. The federal government under various administrations has claimed power over immigration, but this may not be constitutional, according to this site: 

The United States Constitution creates a government of enumerated powers. The Constitution delegates to the United States Congress the power “[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, … throughout the United States.” Thus, the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine which foreigners can become citizens, and under what conditions. The Constitution, however, is silent on immigration. That is, the federal government is not explicitly granted a general power to exclude or remove noncitizens from the United States.

Nevertheless, U.S. courts have allowed the federal government to exercise such a power. At various points in time (and in various U.S. Supreme Court cases), this power over immigration has been said to derive from various legal standings: the Commerce Clause, the Naturalization Clause, the Declaration of War Clause, the Law of Nations Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause, among others….

The above information is good to know when reading about current news. Illegal immigrants are flooding into Texas, and Texas officials have tried several methods to stop them. However, the federal government fought against every Texas effort.

One way that Texas tried to stop illegal immigrants was to spread barbed wire along the Rio Grande River to keep people from crossing into Texas. The wire worked until federal border officials cut the wire to let illegal immigrants to enter Texas.

The case went to court and a lower court ruled in November that federal agents could cut the wire to let illegal aliens into Texas. However, Texas appealed the ruling and won a round in its court battle against the Biden administration. Jack Davis reported the following at the Western Journal:  

“The federal government has not only illegally destroyed property owned by the State of Texas; it has also disrupted the State’s border security efforts, leaving gaps in Texas’s border barriers and damaging Texas’s ability to effectively deter illegal entry into its territory,” the state had argued, according to Fox News.

Fox noted that border officials encountered a record 12,600 migrants at the southern border on Monday.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an injunction against the federal government on Tuesday, ruling that while Texas’ appeal is in process, the wire it has strung can only be cut if there is a medical emergency.

While the federal government said Texas is interfering in immigration, a federal issue, the court did not agree, instead siding with Texas’ argument that the Biden administration should keep its hands off state property.

“The district court found that the Border Patrol exceeded its authority by cutting Texas’s c-wire fence for purposes other than a medical emergency, inspection, or detention. Moreover, the public interest supports clear protections for property rights from government intrusion and control,” the appeals court said.

The court said the injunction was necessary to protect Texas from the harm it would suffer if the Biden administration were allowed to continue cutting its wire as the case moves through the courts.

“The district court found Texas would suffer irreparable harm ‘in the form of loss of control and use of its private property.’ We see no error, clear or otherwise, in this finding,” the appeals court wrote.

The 29 miles of wire strung along the border is part of a multi-phase effort by the state to deter illegal immigration, which Gov. Greg Abbott has said is necessary because of the open-border policies of President Joe Biden.

Earlier this week, Abbott signed a law that makes crossing the border illegally a state crime. The law would jail illegal immigrants unless they agree to immediately go back to Mexico, The Texas Tribune reported.

“Biden’s deliberate inaction has left Texas to fend for itself,” Abbott said on Monday.

The appeals court recognized that Texas has the freedom to control and use its own property. Texans would not need to take matters into their own hands IF the federal government would control the flood of illegal immigrants crossing our borders at the rate of over 10,000 people per day. Since Biden became POTUS, more than ten million people have crossed the US border.  In other words, the number of illegal immigrants crossing our border in the last three years are more than the residents of the State of New Jersey (9,288,994). Our nation has grown by the size of an entire medium-size state because of the invading hordes crossing our border at Biden’s invitation!

How Does Federalism Protect Americans?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is federalism. The Framers of the Constitution of the United States organized a government using the principle of federalism. Federalism is a system of government that has two levels of government which both have control over the same geographic area. Federalism is an organized way to share powers between the federal government and the individual state governments.

The Constitution stated the specific powers allocated to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment explains the principle of federalism. “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 principle of federalism is being used by governors of several states to pass laws aimed at fighting environmental, social and governance (ESG). Samantha Aschieris reported the following in The Daily Signal. 

The governors of Utah, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Arkansas have so far in 2023 signed legislation into law aimed at combating environmental, social, and governance policies. More than a dozen states have introduced or are considering taking action on similar bills, including Montana, Kansas, and Florida.

Other states across the nation are joining Utah, West Virginia, and Kentucky to legislate and enact laws that clarify fiduciary duty to combat the threat of the ESG movement on the livelihoods of Americans and to stop woke fiduciaries from abusing public retirement and investment funds.

Some of those states joining the effort are Florida, Oklahoma, Ohio, and Tennessee. They are joining the effort to protect jobs and investments from the extreme political agenda of the Left.

What Is Federalism?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is federalism – the constitutional division of power between the federal government and the state governments. Federalism is the reason that states are rejecting a recommendation about giving COVID-19 shots to children. Reagan Reese wrote the following in her article at The Daily Signal. 

 

At least 11 states have rejected or are expected to reject a recommendation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that pediatricians give COVID-19 shots to children along with other vaccines.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices unanimously decided Thursday to add COVID-19 shots to the children’s immunization schedule, which some schools and states use to create vaccination requirements. Many states, however, have laws in place that prohibit schools from requiring a COVID-19 vaccination for students.

             Federalism is also the reason why the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade and sent the abortion issue back to the states. The Founders wanted a government big enough to protect the nation – power to raise armed forces and funding to pay for wars – but small enough that it does not overpower the states. Therefore, they listed the powers given to the federal government and reserved all other powers to the states or the people.

What Do You Know about Federalism?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is federalism. While writing the United States Constitution, the Framers were concerned about dividing the power of government. They wanted a strong executive, but they did not want another monarch. So, they divided the power of the federal government between three branches – the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. This is called division of power.

The Framers wanted a strong central government, but they wanted it to be small and limited. They also wanted the states to be strong, so, they divided power between the federal government and the sovereign states. The Tenth Amendment states, “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.”

Dividing power between the central government and the states is called federalism. A formal definition of federalism is “a system of government in which power is divided, by a constitution, between a central government and regional governments.”

Even though the Framers created a small and limited central government, its size and power have grown over the years. There was little growth during the early decades because federalism divided the power. Between 1789 and 1937, most fundamental governmental powers were shared between the federal and state governments. Then the Supreme Court decided a few cases that expanded federal powers to settle conflicts between the states and the federal government.

Beginning in the early 1800s, the decisions of the Supreme Court rested on a pro-national interpretation of Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution. This article specifies the power of Congress, which include the power to tax, raise an army, declare war, establish post offices, and “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States and with the Indian tribes.” The Court used the “commerce clause” to expand the federal government control over the economy and made it a national economy.

The powers of the federal government grew again during the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) during the Great Depression. The Stock Market crashed in October 1929, and by 1932, 25 percent of the workforce was unemployed. Many families were losing their homes. President Herbert Hoover maintained that the federal government could do little to relieve the misery caused by the depression.

FDR entered the White House in 1933 and immediately involved the federal government in the fight against the depression. His proposals became known as the New Deal. Under his direction, the federal government financed several temporary relief and work programs, and the states administered them. FDR’s administration also created several important federal programs designed to provide future economic security in America. With the help of the New Deal, the national government gained power unknown under previous administrations.

The Great Depression was a national emergency, and the federal government usurped power from the states. With each emergency, the states and the people lose power to the central government. The Patriot Act was created after September 11, 2001, and now we are forced to go through security each time we fly or enter a federal building. During the coronavirus pandemic, the government locked down the nation, worse in Democrat states than in Republican-led states.

The Democrat motto, “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” seems to be the mantra of the federal government. It gains more power every single time that our nation faces an emergency. We should also rejoice when we see strong Governors, such as Ron DeSantis of Florida, stand up to the federal government to protect our freedoms. This is what federalism is meant to be.

What Is Federalism?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the principle of federalism. Federalism is a principle in the United States system of government where two or more levels of government make laws for the same territory. The federal government makes laws for the entire United States, states make laws for their individual state, and cities make laws for local issues.

The Legal Information Institute (LII) at Cornell Law School published an article at this site stating that "the Constitution has established a system of ‘dual sovereignty’.” Under this system, certain powers were given to the federal government, while all other powers were reserved for the states or the people. States have surrendered some of their powers but retained others. In their article, the LII offered the following explanation. 

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution contains the Supremacy Clause, which reds, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” This effectively means that when the laws of the federal government are in conflict with the laws of a state’s government, the federal law will supersede the state law.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution describes specific powers which belong to the federal government. These powers are referred to as enumerated powers.

The Tenth Amendment reserves powers to the states, as long as those powers are not delegated to the federal government. Among other powers, this includes creating school systems, overseeing state courts, creating public safety systems, managing business and trade within the state, and managing local government. These powers are referred to as reserved powers.

Concurrent powers refer to powers which are shared by both the federal government and state governments. This includes the power to tax, build roads, and create lower courts.

            Two of the powers given to the federal government are determining who is allowed to enter into the United States and protecting the states against invasion. Under the Biden administration, the federal government are failing to fulfill the two responsibilities listed. As they have done in other situations, states are standing up to the federal government about its plan to end Title 42.

The Biden administration is planning to roll back Title 42 in about five weeks. According to Samuel Mangold-Lenett, there are eighteen Republican attorneys general (AGs) who are “locking arms in a display of unified opposition” to the administration’s plan. They have joined in suing the federal government to force Biden to keep Title 42 in place. 

            Mangold-Lenett stated that the lawsuit to stop Title 42 was originally by the AGs of Arizona, Louisiana, and Missouri. Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming have now joined the lawsuit. This is one example of federalism. The attorneys general are doing all they can to protect the residents of their states from the impact of millions of illegal immigrants bringing diseases into America.

What Is Federalism?

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is the constitutional separation of power. The first type of division of power is known as Federalism, meaning the division of power between the national or federal government and the state and local government. The second type is the division of power between the three major branches of federal government – the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial branches of government. This post will share an example of Federalism.

            The first week in office, the Biden administration opened the borders and invited anyone and everyone who desires to come into the United States. The numbers of migrants who have entered the United States illegally are now in the millions – with more millions expected in the next months.

            Numerous states are pushing back on Biden’s open borders policy, particularly the states located along the borders. According to Callie Patteson, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced multiple actions to protect Texas and fight back against the Biden policies. 

“To help local officials – because communities are being overwhelmed by hordes of illegal immigrants who are being dropped off by the Biden Administration – Texas is providing charter buses for these illegal immigrants who have been dropped off to Washington, D.C.,” the Republican governor said Wednesday.

“We are sending them to the United States capital where the Biden administration will be able to more immediately address the needs of the people that they are allowing to come across our border,” he added.

            Abbott’s announcement came seven weeks prior to the time that the Biden administration lifts the Title 42 immigration order. The announcement contained several separate actions.

·         State troopers will conduct “enhanced safety inspections” at international points of entry” by “stopping and inspecting commercial vehicles coming across the U.S.-Mexico border” – effective immediately and “dramatically slow[ing]” incoming vehicle traffic.

·         Bus charters would be made available “to take illegal migrants to Washington, D.C.”

·         The Texas Division of Emergency Management will direct the operation.

·         There will be “increased military activity” on the Mexican border to “install razor wire at some low-water along the river to deter migrants from crossing.” The National Guard will be issued riot gear to protect against caravan violence. The military will reinforce border agents “to deal with a potential influx of undocumented immigrants.”

·         The state will install “blockades on roads leading to border towns.”

According to Abbott, “Texas will continue to evaluate, press, and oppose the Biden

Administration’s open border policies and announce additional actions next week to respond to the unprecedented illegal border crossings.” Abbott’s actions are possible because the Constitution gives States the right to protect their people. The sad thing is that Abbott is protecting Texans from the federal government that is tasked by the Constitution to stop invasions into the States.

Why Is Federalism Good for America?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns federalism, just one of the genius ideas in the United States Constitution. The basic concept of federalism is a form of government where there is a balance of power between the national government and the state or local level. Federalism was first seen in the Articles of Confederation, where the various colonies focused on limiting the power in the Continental Congress. The Framers of the Constitution carried the idea of federalism into the Supreme Law of the Land for the new United States of America.

            From the beginning, the Framers did not intend for all the power to reside in the federal government. They never intended for all the decisions affecting citizens lives to be governed from a central point. The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, was written in such a way as to control the federal government. It outlines the powers of the federal government, and the Tenth Amendment makes clear that any power not given directly to the federal government was to remain with the states or the people themselves.

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.” However, the federal government continues to grow bigger and usurp authority from the states. Edwin J. Feulner, the founder and former president of The Heritage Foundation, wrote the following in August 2010: 

Growth of the Federal Government. The relative size of the various levels of government has changed dramatically since 1900. Then, almost 60% of government spending took place at the state and local levels. Today, the federal government spends more than twice as much as all other levels of government combined.

Centralization of Administration. Over the course of the 20^th century, the administration of government has been increasingly centralized under the federal government, gathering particular momentum with the expansion of the regulatory state in the 1960s. The Federal Register, which contains the text of new federal regulations, notices, and decisions, ran to 22,877 pages in 1960; it was 68,598 pages in 2009.

Subsuming of States Under National Programs. Today, states increasingly administer policies and programs emanating from Washington, making them for the most part agents of a national administrative government that, in theory if not in fact, is unlimited and all-encompassing. As a result, states often act like supplicants seeking relief from the federal government.

A Renewed Threat. The policies of the current Administration and Congress – from massive spending to the takeover of whole industries to new regulatory initiatives and the resulting explosion of debt – have been especially threatening to and destructive of the idea and structural integrity of federalism.

            Former President Donald J. Trump recognized the federal regulations were stifling the economy, so he cut more than twice as many regulations as he signed. Once the federal government lost some or all the control of the economy, it began to soar – until COVID-19 came from China to shut down the nation. Meanwhile, States began clawing back authority. One example is the revolution that has taken place over the past 35 years.

Don Surber recently wrote about the gun revolution – a revolution won by Americans “state by state” and “Without firing a shot (except at the firing range).” He wrote, “Texas is the latest to join the freedom coalition” after Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1927 into law. This bill “eliminates the requirement for Texas residents to obtain a license to carry handguns if they’re not prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a gun.” This is “a big victory in Texas” for conservative activists who have long sought for such a law. It is also “another notch on the gun handle nationally.” 

            Surber continued, “35 years ago, it was illegal in 16 states (including Texas) for a civilian to carry a concealed weapon. Only Vermont did not require a pistol permit.” The revolution took place by “Working through the slow process of going state to state to change the law.” Surber includes charts to show how “Texas and many other states went from red (a ban on concealed carry) to yellow (may issue) to blue (shall issue) to green (no permission necessary).”

It is the Vermontization of America. The Green Mountain Boys always put the right to firearms off limits to regulation. Interesting state. For 14 years, it was a republic – longer than Texas and other states that were republics for a time.

The battle for the Second Amendment continues. From Massachusetts to Hawaii, there are clusters of holdouts who allow sheriffs to decide who shall have the right to defend himself.

But this gives Americans hope that they can regain their rights, state by state. The battle for the right to life for children continues, with states interceding on behalf of babies with deadlines for making the decision on abortion….

The success in the gun revolution should encourage those in the babies revolution.

            Thomas Lifson reviewed the material from Surber and then connected the gun revolution to states asserting their constitutional role in elections. He quoted Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislatures thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

            When the Attorney General Merrick B. Garland threatened to take over the Arizona Senate audit for 2020 election results, the Arizona State Attorney Mark Brnovich reminded him that the legislatures of the states have authority over how elections are held in their state.

            Arizona is close to finishing its forensic audit, and Georgia starting one. Lifson said that “the Founders’ wisdom is on display” because “Pennsylvania is poised to join” the other two states. “The federal government may well be corrupted,” but “the states created the federal government.”

            Lifson counseled conservatives to not despair because liberals control “the White House, Congress, the media, academia, nonprofits.” He reminded his readers that “the Founders knew that state governments would always be closer to the people than the distant federal government. That’s why the Tenth Amendment … is so important.

With signs that the Supreme Court may be reacting against threats to pack it by issuing more 9-to-0 decisions, there is even the possibility that it will finally start enforcing the Tenth Amendment. That would be revolutionary, but well within the intent of the Founders.