In the American experiment, the labyrinth of federalism is often praised for its innovation. Yet, it paradoxically nurtures an underlying tension: it empowers minority interests, sometimes at the expense of broader democratic values. This dichotomy is starkly illuminated in a series of pivotal Supreme Court rulings, such as Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to African Americans and reinforced slavery, and Bradwell v. State of Illinois, which upheld gender-based discrimination in professions (4).
Decisions like Plessy v. Ferguson and Buck v. Bell underscore how the federalist system, particularly through the judiciary, has often upheld laws that privilege minority views over more progressive, majority-held values. The Court’s decisions have not only mirrored societal biases but, in many cases, have actively perpetuated them (4).
Konisky and Nolette’s analysis of the recent conservative turn in American federalism highlights a significant shift in the balance of power within the federal system. They detail how the ideological transformation of the federal judiciary, combined with Republican dominance in state legislatures, has reshaped policy-making (1). This evolution in federalism fortifies state legislatures, leading to a political landscape where conservative ideologies hold more sway in our legal codes.
For instance, Forbes’ examination of the Missouri Compromise unveils the deep-seated historical roots of what can be perceived as the American caste system—a structure rooted in slavery and political compromises (2). This historical context reveals a persistent pattern within American federalism that often fortified minority interests at the expense of democratic ideals and equality.
Michaels and Noll discuss the modern phenomenon termed “vigilante federalism” in their Cornell Law Review article. This manifestation allows state legislatures to adopt legislation granting private citizens the authority to enforce conservative social policies, underscoring the evolving interplay between historical compromises and the changing landscape of federalism (3).
These perspectives paint American federalism as a double-edged sword: it fosters innovation and autonomy while potentially emboldening minority powers, often suppressing the majority’s rights.
The Balance of Power: Federal vs. State Authority
Which government should wield greater power, the federal or the states? This question is central to the American democratic experiment.
States have been celebrated as “laboratories of democracy,” a concept articulated by Justice Louis Brandeis in his dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann. He emphasized the value of states as crucibles for innovation, experimentation, and policy adaptation (5). Yet, history shows that states have sometimes used their autonomy to contravene democracy and equality (4).
The discussion around whether federal power should be bolstered is significant. With its broader national perspective, the federal government has the potential to safeguard against potential abuses of state power, upholding fundamental rights and principles that transcend state boundaries.
However, the challenge lies in striking a balance that preserves federalism’s essence while preventing misuse. The “laboratories of democracy” must thrive, yet safeguards must ensure that state innovations align with democratic values and do not infringe upon minority rights.
The recent conservative shift in federalism, noted by Konisky and Nolette, highlights the evolving power distribution within the federal system (1). A robust federal government can serve as a check against potential state-level excesses, but it must not stifle states’ creative potential.
Finding a harmonious coexistence that allows local experimentation while upholding universal democratic ideals is the key. The ongoing dialogue and a delicate equilibrium that respects historical federalism lessons while adapting to the needs of a diverse nation are crucial.
While grappling with the dynamics of the federal-state relationship, the ideal balance of power continues to evolve. It demands a nuanced approach that preserves federalism’s essence and democratic principles. Comparative insights from newer democracies could provide innovative approaches in the ongoing dialogue about American federalism’s structure.
References
- Konisky, D.M., & Nolette, P. (2022). The State of American Federalism 2021–2022: Federal Courts, State Legislatures, and the Conservative Turn in the Law. Publius: The Journal of Federalism.
- Forbes, R. P. (2009). The Missouri Compromise and Its Aftermath: Slavery and the Meaning of America. University of North Carolina Press.
- Michaels, J. D., & Noll, D. L. (2023). Vigilante Federalism. Cornell Law Review, Volume(108).
- Supreme Court of the United States. Various landmark decisions.
- Brandeis, L. (1932). New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932).
This article was adapted from a paper I composed initially for my POL 201 class at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. To learn more about the college and its programs, please visit University of Arizona Law.