Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

To the editor:

With the advent of the next election, we need to conscientiously examine how the issues of the day have historically evolved and how they relate to the key construct of our constitutional republic. Specifically, how do the issues of the day comport with federalism?

Simply put, federalism is the division and sharing of power between the national and state governments.

There are specific governmental functions that are best executed at the national (i.e., central) level. The Founders noted, and detailed, many of these in the Constitution to avoid chaos amongst the states (you have to remember much of the grid ock associated the Confederation). These include the power to regulate trade between states, declare war, manage the mail, and print money.

Dual federalism was prevalent early on and the lines of responsibility were vehemently drawn in the early 1800s: the states have their responsibilities, and the national government has its responsibilities, ergo the Tenth Amendment, which states that all powers not constitutionally given to the federal government are reserved to the states.

The strength of the Constitution has lain in its flexibility under the federalism construct to accommodate future bona fide centralism needs for issues that were unknown in 1787. These modern times issues include the regulation of air and water: our industrialization has created the potential for regional and national externalities across state lines. For example, transport mechanisms associated with hydrology and climate are oblivious to boundaries on a map. Contaminants released into the air in one state, and thus not regulated by another state downwind (think acid rain), can create disparate impacts.

We now work within what can be called a “marble-cake” federalism wherein the federal and state governments cooperate with overlapping and shared power to address such specific issues. The elected officials in Congress from all the states agree on laws and the federal government, upon passage of authorization and appropriation legislation, through various agencies develops regulations that give overarching guidance to the states. The execution level thus devolves to the states who choose to meet the nationally legislated minimum requirements or impose more restrictive guidance based on local concerns.

The “incentive” for execution (state) level activities is, of course, the various funding programs involved that are sourced by federal taxes (not all programs are unfunded mandates). Environmental protection and transportation are good examples. Occasionally, in a likewise manner, state governments then pass requirements down to the local government level (this is particularly visible in transportation programs).

So, in the current divisive political environment, the question we must ask ourselves is this: is the issue really a federalism issue (in the modern “marble cake” context) that should rest at the central government level or is it best addressed at the state and local level? Remember, we have a representative government and not a “pure” democracy in the strictest sense. As issues devolve to lower levels in the political hierarchy, however, the democratic process (one man, one vote) becomes more prominent (a good example is the New England Town Hall Meeting).

So, for the most recent cause célèbre which returned the issue to the states, the question is whether the issue, per federalism, should be centralized or decentralized at the state and local level. A side-by-side comparison with the Constitutionally enumerated tasks and modern requirements such as environment and transportation seems to say no since federalism principles would leave the resolution of the details to the states, thus becoming truly reflective of the vox populi within each respective state.

Being a free nation, if states regulate non-central issues differently (through our elected officials and thus reflective of the desires of the electorate) to the dislike of any citizen, then the individual citizen always has the option of relocating to a state wherein other citizens are of a similar mind set or to prosecute change at the ballot box. Federalism, in this regard, comports with the diversity found in each of our 50 political experiments.

Our strength, therefore, is our diversity about some issues and our homogeneity in others. So, if emotion can be left at the polling place door, ask yourself if you’re voting for a centrist or non-centrist candidate and which best suits our so far successful nearly 250 years of federalism.

As Alexander Hamilton stated, “Give all the power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give all the power to the few, they will oppress the many.”

William Vaughan,     Mocksville