top of page

Federalism Complicates U.S. Policymaking

Matthew Saporito

By

About the Writing

The essay intricately explores the fundamental concepts of federalism and the separation of powers, highlighting their importance in safeguarding the democratic process and promoting diverse representation within the government. While federalism helps in distributing power and enhancing political participation, it also introduces complexities and potential conflicts between federal and state laws, as illustrated through examples such as border enforcement and marijuana legalization. Similarly, the separation of powers aims to prevent the concentration of power and promote checks and balances, yet it can lead to gridlock and misuse of power, as seen in instances like the Stolen Valor Act and political divisions in government. The narrative effectively underscores the dual impact of these principles in shaping governance while acknowledging the inherent challenges they pose in policymaking and governance.

The Writing

Federalism Complicates U.S. PolicymakingMatthew Saporito
00:00 / 01:04

Although federalism and separation of powers are fundamental ideals that safeguard and expand the representation of our government, these two principles can complicate and slow down policymaking, create gray lines between powers of government, and create tensions between the branches of the federal

government.


Since the dawn of our Constitution, amendments have only been altered or added a measly 30 times. That's 30 times for nearly 300 hundred years. Although constantly shifting in minor ways, our Constitution and our government have remained fundamentally similar across these centuries. The framers of our Constitution intended for this stability through 2 crucial principles. The first is the idea of federalism. Federalism wants to limit the power of the national government by dividing power into the federal government and state governments. These two governments must often cooperate. For instance, federal agencies rely on police officers to enforce laws created by the national government.


Additionally, each government is granted sufficient independence to compete with the other. As you can see, there is an interplay between the two governments. They have to watch over each other in a sense, which indirectly resists the power of both governments. The framers intended for this crossplay of power to happen so one government wouldn't take over and turn the country into a state of tyranny. By extending power to the states, federalism also helps to extend representation across the nation, a fundamental ideal of our democracy. In addition, the act of power being equally spread across every nook and cranny of our country allows for better laws for specific areas. For example, a group of politicians within Washington D.C. would need help to make environmental laws in a particular county within Alaska.


The country would be better if more governments made specific laws for their area of expertise. Additionally, with more governments, there is a greater diversity of opinion, ultimately leading to better laws. These laws created by states also have the potential to influence federal law, further reinforcing the idea of representation across the country. An example of this is the 19th Amendment. Before the implementation of this Amendment, multiple states had already given women the right to vote, which eventually influenced the federal government to act on the matter.


As you can see, there is a heavy interplay of power between the federal and state governments, which leads to a better country with more diversity in their laws and opinions. Furthermore, federalism also increases political participation across the country. With many federal and state governmental institutions across the country, more and more people have the opportunity to participate within the government, further reinforcing the critical idea of a representative democracy. As a recap for federalism, the ideal helps to protect against tyranny, spread representation across the country, create better and more diverse laws, and increase political participation. To further safeguard against tyranny, the framers also came up with the idea of separation of powers. The concept of separation of powers seeks to limit the national government's power by dividing it amongst itself. With three branches of the federal government, the government is forced to have separate but overlapping functions across the three branches, which creates the idea that each branch must work together. For example, Congress makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the law, and the judicial branch punishes those who have broken the law. This interplay of power between the three branches of government allows for equal power and no tyranny. With each branch forced to work with one another, one branch can't excel and dominate the others. The framers sought to implement this within our government to protect against an unfair government.


Additionally, the separation of powers helps increase representation, just as federalism does. With multiple branches come multiple different types of elections. Multiple elections help lead to a mixed regime of representation, allowing politicians across the federal government to have different interpretations of how to govern. These differing interests spread across multiple branches allow for multiple outlooks, multiple levels of government action, and, ultimately, better outcomes. In essence, the idea of separation of powers is to keep the federal government in check with itself, which leads to more thought-out decisions and less tyranny. Both federalism and separation of powers are fundamental ideas within our government that help our country extensively, yet with every bit of good comes a bit of evil.

Through federalism, the power spread across the country seems to carry a lot of benefits. Yet, federalism also can create a gray area between federal and state law, ultimately slowing down and harming the efficacy of our government. For example, the border enforcement bill in Texas has created controversy with differing views across state and federal governments. For context, the bill is a step towards safeguarding the safety of Texas' borders. The advocates of the bill argue that immigration into Texas is harming the safety of Texans and is also increasing the drug problem in the area. The bill seemed like a good way for Texas to increase its safety, yet the federal government shot the bill down as the court ruled that the federal government was in charge of border disputes. "In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down some of the major provisions of Arizona's SB 1070, which sought to expand state-based immigration.


The court ruled that most provisions of that law were preempted by federal statute" (Border-Enforcement Bill article). Although a previous state-based case regarding border disputes was struck down due to the federal government having power in that field, the advocates of the bill came back from that argument saying, "Although the Constitution imposed the primary responsibility for the protection of our borders with the federal government, it does not thereby strip the states of the power to defend themselves" (Border-Enforcement Bill article - Josh Trevino). The federal government and the bill's advocates (states' side) had opposing views that contradicted each other, but both seemed valid. At the time of this article's publication, this problem had still not been solved, and the two sides of government were stuck in debate. Through the idea of federalism, the states and federal governments have shown signs of clashing against each other, resulting in negative outcomes. In this case, the problem has still not been resolved, and people along the Texas border are still being harmed because the state and federal government cannot conclude.


Another example of a gray area between the two is the talk on marijuana legalization. In some states, the usage and distribution of marijuana have become legalized, yet it is still highly illegal on the federal level. This jurisdictional conflict between the two governments has created a gray area for dispensaries and users of the drug. The conflict has made it difficult for businesses to determine which laws to obey. They can obey the state laws while committing a crime under federal law. In some cases, individuals can be charged federally by following state law. This gray area between federal and state law has been an ongoing issue for many topics, such as gun laws. This difference in law makes it difficult for citizens to know which way is right. Furthermore, the idea of separation of powers has also created some problems within our government. Although the ideal can be beneficial as it allows for multiple checks over policymaking to ensure everything is right, the system can be used in an unethical way. For example, the Stolen Valor Act, an ethical attempt to safeguard our veterans' honor, was struck down by the Supreme Court due to a dispute over the 1st Amendment. For context, Xavier Alvarez was charged through the Stolen Valor Act for lying about being a veteran and the winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor. Many were pleased to see the man getting what he deserved, yet Alvarez took his case to the Supreme Court to rule the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional. The Supreme Court did, in fact, side with Alvarez, saying that "Congress cannot outlaw lies no matter how offensive they are" (Supreme Court Strikes Down Stolen Valor Act article).


Many tried to argue against the ruling by saying that "veteran groups [say] these falsehoods do them harm" (Stolen Valor article), yet the court still sided with Alvarez. Alvarez took his case to the Supreme Court and used the separation of powers principle to get the judicial branch to act in the legislative branch in his favor to get away with his unethical actions. Many were outraged, and Alvarez was pilloried in the press, yet he still got away with his actions because he used the separation of powers principle in an unethical manner to get his way. Another example of the separation of powers working against our government is when our country experiences gridlock. Gridlock is when the two political parties control different branches of our government, resulting in heated disagreement and harm to the efficacy of our government. For example, when George W. Bush was in office, the Democrats won over both houses, causing a political divide between our executive and legislative branch. The democrats scrutinized George W. Bush's previous Republican-based decisions, which caused a slowdown in policymaking and disagreement across the federal government. Although separation of powers helps against tyranny and misrepresentation, it also can create a negative divide between our federal government, directly harming the efficacy of our government.


STAY IN THE KNOW

Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page