The US government is nominally a federal republic. The Constitution never says the word federal, but the main proponents of the Constitution were named Federalists while the opponents were anti-Federalists.

Wikipedia defines Federalism as:



Funny that it should mention Federalist 45


Madison must be rolling in his grave...

Questions for debate:

Is the United States form of government still a federalist model?

Do the states have any power to check the federal government, as envisioned by Federalist 45?

For sure. You mention to anyone about state sovereignty and they look at you cross-eyed.

Questions for debate:

Is the United States form of government still a federalist model?

It is by law, but not by action. The greatest violation or usurpation of power by the federal government has to be the abuse of the commerce clause and the 14th amendment. By Supreme Court rulings, the legislature has been given cart blanched over all material produce in the nation and to the latter, the Court has declared themselves the soul legislators of rights.

Do the states have any power to check the federal government, as envisioned by Federalist 45?

With the current attitude of the Supreme Court, the only option left is rebellion by defiance to legislation and Court rulings, example the medical marijuana laws. Another issue of great concern must be this taking of the 9th amendment by the Supreme Court (USSC), via the 14th amendment, to place themselves as the arbiters of what a right is or is not. By so doing the USSC has placed the state constitutions at their pleasure as to recognize them or not. It is in Roe v. Wade that can be found the use of this usurpation of power under the name of substantive due process. On the very foundation of this interpretation is an absurdity that is beyond measure.

I would say that if the next body of USSC Justices does not return to fundamental law, this nations dual republic is lost and is replaced by the obliarchy of the USSC.

I agree with George that the Commerce Clause is probably the most egregious abuse of federal power. The legislative branch is just as guilty though. Have a law that the federal government disagrees with and consider welfare, highway, and other funds gone. The drinking age in Louisiana was 18 for a long time, and the feds forced compliance by cutting highway funds. Now they do it to standardize blood alchohol levels for drunk driving. Good intentions, poor methods. Abuse of power?

Do the states have any power to check the federal government? No. There is no recourse available to them that I can see aside from the aforementioned outright rebellion.

One thing the authors of the Constitution never contemplated was the powerful effect democracy would have in reversing the trends that they had known up to that time. When you have a king, and when he rules from a distant place, you naturally attach yourself to a more local government, especially one that you have a voice in. But when you can elect all of your leaders, your attention is naturally going to be drawn to the most powerful one, or at least the one who appears most powerful, which would be the one in charge of the whole country. But whether his power at first is real or imaginary, the attention that the people focus on him, and the expectations they have of him, are going to make him powerful, regardless of how limited his powers are on paper.

That's why, for example, President Bush could call for a Federal Marriage Amendment, and the next day Congress would be holding hearings for just that purpose, even though the President has absolutely zero constitutional role in the amendment process. It's because he has the unique power to focus public attention on the issue. You won't find it written anywhere in the Constitution, but it's just as real all the same, and it's because his is just about the only elected position in the country that the average voter considers worthy of attention. This is something the founders totally underestimated when they drew up the Constitution.

Actually they did. The President, before the XII amendment was elected by electors of each state, the number being the same number of representatives and senators in each state. The electors were chosen by the appointment of the state government. This did not put the president into a pure democratic position, but protected from it. Though the 12th did not provide a pure democratic election, but still provided for the electorate, process, it has still made being president one of great populous importance, as the electorates are now voted on by the people rather then the legislators. Then the XVII amendment came along and put the election of senators having been elected by the legislature of each state to being elected by pure democratic vote. This too has changed the landscape. It has essentially allowed for the forgetting of the sovereignty of each state and has put our nationalism as the beacon of our republic, destroying the value of state sovereignty. But to what you, Blackstone have stated, it appears to be very true to the effect pure democratic voting has produced.

A very good and often forgotten point: Senators were once elected by state legislatures. This put a very important check on the federal government, since we know that a single Senator from a single State can effectively paralyze the government.

Removing the state legislature from the process (and putting it directly to the people) made the Senator a national position instead of one with a local emphasis. Indeed, the six year term allows a Senator to operate very independently from the will of the state government.

The change to the election of the President (via the Twelfth Amendment) also greatly diminished the power of the individual state legislatures over the federal executive branch. The people of the state kept the power, but without any direct involvement, the State government lost considerable power.

The 12th Amendment did not change the method of choosing the electors. The constitutional rule was the same before, as after, as it is today: They're chosen in whatever way their state's legislature deems fit. It just so happens that every state legislature in the country (not surprisingly) has decided that they're to be chosen according to popular vote.

As for the 17th Amendment in 1913, that was just as much an effect of, as it was a cause of, the way the American people were seeing themselves in national terms rather than in state terms.

I think I feel a rant coming on.....I shall retain control.
Since the beginning the great design of the founders has been weakened and made into a sad mess by continual "tweaks" that have removed framework of the design bit by critical bit. Allowing the senate to become an "open to the public" is one of the more critical mistakes ever made. We see this now being propagated among the people in regards to judges--by those who call themselves conservatives no less? Congress was supposed to be the bulwark for the "people" to break themselves against when flashpoint issues arose --entering foreign conflicts all the way to gay marriage. This allowed frustrations to be vented and avoid the creation of the whole Red/Blue state garbage. The more emotional could break their heads and burn of their rage and emotion --allowing the Senate to actually debate on the merits of the ideas on philosophy and practicality.
A huge mistake--seconded only by removing the rights of the State as a separate and Independent body at the end of the Civil War.

I think we would have a much better definition of the rights of the Individual vs. the rights of the State--or really "Society" had we stayed consistent to the original design. We would be exposed far less to the mercy of the flashpoint mobthat runs today's politics.


This made our system stronger--not in the way of strength compared to other national powers in a bicep flexing kind of way--but in protecting liberty from becoming so easily corruptible by a very few wealthy or well connected persons or organizations.
Yes it was more difficult to make sweeping changes for the whole, but that was of course the whole point. While injustices were allowed to continue--slavery for example--it was also part of the system that the changes would be supported by the whole because of the decency of humandkind in the end. This was why slavery was not tackled at the beginning--because the founders truly believed it could not last nor be supported by the kind of people they believed us to be. Liberty requires maturity and careful thought--democracy requires an angry mob and the ability to scratch an X on a ballot.

The constant changes have done nothing but put our Republic at risk. It is the gradual ascendancy of the central government over the States that made it possible for Presidents to thrust the country as a whole in to wars that would never have gained enough popular support for Congress to ever support. [Edited to remove rant about WWI as the foundation for todays crisises by a grumpy isolationist]
That was the inevitable conclusion of the Civil War. I don't find that the "national" identity actually makes us stronger. I would rather the original design instead of the creeping socialism we have now. I also believe we would in fact be stronger today because of it. When people's loyalty is forced by the votes of a few you do not get unity but spreading dissension.
The strength of America lies in her people and their ability to freely come together--otherwise you get what we have today: red/blue and the Iraq war are perfect examples. Huge divisions and only 2 choices;left or right.

Article II section I: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to …

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States…

Twelfth amendment: The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States,

In the original before the twelfth, there was only as many electors as there was representative and senators. After the twelfth, their was as many electors as there were eligible voters in the state. It is true that the total of electorate provide by each state is still the same as the numbers before the 12th, and it is true that the numbers can be either a unaminaty to the majority winner or the elctorate be divided by the % of the electors vote. But, it is now an elector making the electorate, not an electorate making the the vote as in the former.


This is a given. What is being pointed out is the effect that this has had on the attitude of limited federalism and the loss of acknowlegedment to state sovereignty.

I am not sure I would agree with this? Where have the states lost their sovereignty? If this be the 14th amendment, that is another thread. To set the table, the 9th nor the 10th are affected by the 14th, as these two former preserved from any federal powerand were not privileges immunities. Logic will not allow for any other approach.

As to the body of your quote, I agree. It has defined our hour.

Again you seem to be taken by antiquity. I would suggest that states have never been fully sovereign, only semi-sovereign.

A casual glance at Article I, Section 8 of The Constitution of the United States mentions exclusive powers of the national (federal) government. Without the basic powers to coin money, declare war, establish post offices, etc. no government can be fully sovereign.

The idea of states as fully sovereign is a perpetual myth.

Not really BOF The "Union" of the States was necessary for America to compete and survive in the world--voluntarily coming together--but it was never meant for it to be a one size fits none kind of set up we have today where the center dictates to the rest--which is what we in effect have.

The states come together for national interests and the basics--defense and currency, issues no single state could effectively promote alone.

and I would remove the post office from the necessities of a government--ups already does it better than the PO ever did......

Together in that regard we are America--without it we are europe who up until very recently has always been at war with each other in constant power grabs.
Everything else was supposed to be up to the states.

Definetely not a myth--but these days definetely a legend.

I would argue that the states were fully sovereign under the Articles of Confederation. Once the The Constitution of the United States became law, the states were never fully sovereign, only semi-sovereign or partially sovereign.

Uh UPS! Have you ever tried to get a package from UPS when therer was no way to wait around home for them to arrive. FedEx maybe, but UPS (gag).

As referred in Federalist #45, no, the states are not fully sovereign, but have much more sovereignty to the lives of the people then the federal government, or are suppose to.


As to UPS or fedex being better then the USPS, tests have proven the USPS is your best way to send.

Why don't you try telling that to blacks in the south, especially in the days before the civil rights movement. States can be some of the worst offenders when it comes to violating all types of civil liberties. I personally think it is a good thing that the majority of the Bill of rights have been incorporated through Amendment XIV to include the states.

BTW: It is helpful to be exact. Politicians call states "sovereign" because it sounds good, but in debate it should be "semi-sovereign."

And was it not the majority of states that corrected this? If you wish to put al faith in one nationalist government, what is your option to quell this government when it travels down a road of despotism?


I too, except for the confusion that has resulted. For example, in free speech as placed by the bill of rights, the right given was the federal government could not stop your speaking against it. It had not provided for the right to slander, to fraud by lying or the in any way harm your neighbor. Those were still charges that could have been brought under the lost charge of assault. The greatest demise to liberty under state dominion has to be the incorporating of the 9th amendment, a total usurpation of power by the Fed.

For the most part it was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed under the Johnson administration that corrected what has been corrected. Johnson correctly predicted Democrats would lose the South for a generation over the two bills.

I don't know how old you are George, I would guess relatively young. I can remember going to department stores in downtown Fort Worth and seeing "white" and "colored" signs on the restroom and water fountains. I don't think Texas or some of the other states would have corrected this without federal intervention. From some other threads I gather you don't like federal power obtained through the interstate commerce clause. Much of the Civil Rights bill of 1964, especially the public accommodations section was pinned to the interstate commerce clause. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the power of the federal government to do this in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States 1964

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...tofatlanta.html

I’m not unaware of the actual and potential despotism of the national government. Some of the decency meddling of the FCC is an example that comes to mind. Depending on your point of view, the Bush administration’s tapping of domestic phone lines could be another example. There is a debate about that here. It has been closed, but you may want to read it.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...00&#entry177180

I don’t know where you live George but I have equal distain for the current governments in Washington and Texas.

I'm having a little trouble figuring out what you're saying here. Could you explain what you mean by "electorate" in that sentence?

Anyway, if you look at Article II, Section 1 of the original unamended Constitution, you'll see the third paragraph that begins, "The Electors shall meet in their respective States...." The 12th Amendment simply takes out that entire paragraph and substitutes itself in its place. Unfortunately the Amendment doesn't actually say that it does that, so you have to look at the context. But once you do the comparison, you'll see that that's exactly what it does.

And the paragraph prior to that in the original Constitution is the one that determines how the electors are chosen, and it remains utterly unchanged by the 12th or by any other amendment.


OK, but what I'm pointing out is that the passage of the 17th was itself at least a partial effect of the fact that the Presidency was an elected position, which inevitably attracted people's attention to the central government, and encouraged them think of it, rather than their state government, as the place to take all their grievances to.


It was happening even before the Civil War, but the vast differences between North and South prior to then checked the process a little. The Civil War effectively removed the South as a factor in national politics for a couple of decades anyway, which enabled things to consolidate further. But I consider it likely that if the Presidency wasn't an elected position, and we didn't go through that animating contest every four years that has such a powerful psychological effect on the way people view the country, then progress towards consolidation would have been a lot slower.

I may be all wet here, but I am under the impression that prior to 1804, the onlly people that were welectors were the few selcted by the legislations method or choice. And these 10 or so electors cast the ballot for presidnet and for vice presidnet(who did not have to be of the same party).

After the 12th, the entire original constitutional law was changed with the exception of the number of votes represented by the entire registered voters of a state(electors) voting for who the electorates(the 10 or so)would be obligated to vote for. Thus, the electorial college was protected, providing for an more balanced positon of state powers over an imablance of one party in geographic locations.(red and blue states).

The 17th was a sham, a ruse on the people to further erode state sovereignty or influence over federal powers. It has worked some. If you ever read through the reconstruction debates of congress, you would be amazed. Library of Congress

Your first sentence holds true after 1804 as well. In both cases, the legislature of each state determined the method of choosing its electors. The only thing that changed is that before 1804, each elector had to vote for two people, without the opportunity of specifying which one was for President and which for Vice President. The idea was that whoever got the most electoral votes would be President, and the runner-up would be VP. After 1804, the electors had to make clear who their selection was for President and who for VP. Other than a few other provisions detailing what would happen when nobody got a majority of electoral votes, the 12th Amendment changed nothing else.