The Role Of Federalism In The United States

A bloody war has been fought against a tyrannical ruler and forged a new country. This new nation was the United States of America. The United States was formed after breaking from the cruel yoke of King George III. After a quick stint with a failing Articles of Confederation, fifty wealthy Caucasian men gathered to frame a new path for the young, disunited country. Not all the delegates were there. New Hampshire’s delegates weren’t present until July, while Rhode Island’s delegates were in absentia for the entire convention. What would result from these representatives representing a disunited country? Would anarchy result or would a new type of government be born? A one of a kind document from which a 200+ year democracy would function on
would result. This document; the United States Constitution. It helped in organizing the new government and also would guard what all citizens in the colonists feared: the return of King George III’s tyranny. The framing of the Constitution was guided by this fear. The Constitution would guard against tyranny with a four-pronged approach; federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and a solution to the big states vs big states debate.
The first way the Constitution guarded against tyranny was federalism.
Tension concerning the division of power between central and state governments were demoralizing for the delegates. Federalism came as a solution to this problem. In Federalist Paper #51, James Madison says, “In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate governments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will each control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” James Madison stated the essence of federalism in the above quote. He is when he said, “the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments,” the two distinct governments were the central and state governments. These governments were then divided into branches hence “the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate governments.” These two government and their branches would “control each other” and would provide the people “a double security.” This wasn’t the only stop against tyranny. More were to
come.
Another way the Constitution guarded against tyranny was the separation of powers. King George III had absolute power and perfectly fit Madison’s definition of a tyrant. In Federalist Paper #47, Madison defines tyranny as “the “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective.” In the framers quest to resolve this issue, they looked at Montesquieu’s idea on separation of powers. Montesquieu based his beliefs on ancient Rome’s republican government which prevented concentration of power in the hands of one. The framers then divided the powers of the central government to the legislative, executive, and judicial branch. The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces these laws, and the judicial branch interprets these laws and decides whether or not they fit with the Constitution. This way it prevented power from being rested in a sole person or group. However, what if one branch got too powerful? The framers answered that question with checks and balances. Despite the Magna Carter limiting the king’s abilities, it was widely observed that the king was above the law.
The framers in their quest to prevent tyranny were very attentive to the details of the Constitution. However, there seemed to be flaw with separation of powers. It made it seem like the branches couldn’t be affected by the Constitution. Again, the delegates had an answer to this issue. Again, the delegates pulled on the ideas of Montesquieu, who suggested checks and balances. The system of checks and balances were that the three branches balanced each other. The system was very similar to that of the state and federal governments checking each other. However, it was more complicated than just a division of powers. The powers given to one branch could also work against another and vice versa. For example, the head of the executive branch nominates the judges in the courts of the judicial branch. However, the judicial branch can declare presidential acts unconstitutional. This is why in the Federalist Paper #51, James Madison said, “…the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that they may be a check on the other…(The three branches) should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other.” He summarized why the system of checks and balances existed. The framers, however, were pulling all stops to prevent a chance of tyranny in any part of the government. One example of this was in the answer to the
debate of big states vs. small states.
Majority of time at the Constitutional Convention was focused on the contention of big states vs. small states. The large states such as New York and Virginia had huge populations and to no surprise wanted representation to be based on population. James Madison of Virginia proposed what would be known as the Virginia plan. The Virginia Plan called for a bicameral house whose representation was based on population size. Smaller states such as Delaware forged a bitter and debilitating war against this plan. Such states supported the New Jersey Plan. The New Jersey Plan, proposed by William Paterson of New Jersey, called for a single house with equal representation. With this debate, it seemed that the vengeful Articles of Confederation had found an Achilles heel in the Constitution. However, the crisis was solved by Roger Sherman of Connecticut who proposed The Great Compromise of 1787. The Great Compromise called for a bicameral house, divided by the House of Representatives and Senate. As Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 states, in the House of Representative, “Representatives…shall be appointed…according to… (population). And the senate in Article 1, Section 3, Clause “shall be composed of two senators from each state.” Despite not being the best of compromises, the two parties agreed on this compromise. It is considered that this document saved the country and helped the framers in their quest to prevent tyranny.
The United States Constitution is an example of taking a stand and proving a pen is mightier than a sword. A result of compromise and blood, the document would provide a beacon for the residents the 13 colonies. However, a bitter fight for ratification laid, but at the end, the U.S. constitution would become the “supreme law of the land.”