Do you agree with the concept of federalism or do you believe that the state or federal government should have ultimate power?

Answer 1

Federalism generally is the distribution of power between central and noncentral government bodies so that each acts as a check against the power of the other.

"Federalism" during the Constitutional Convention was a position in favor of a stronger union among the states than was present during the Revolutionary War. "Anti-Federalism" was generally opposed to a stronger central, or federal, government.

This question asks directly whether you prefer the majority of power to reside with the central government or with state governments, or that they balance each other.

The authors of the Constitution studied the historical models they had available to them, including absolute monarchies (like their ally, France), parliamentary monarchies (like their enemy, England), and Athenian Democracy. They saw problems with all of those systems: monarchs tend to abuse power, Parliaments can be undemocratic or ineffective, and the Athenians fell prey to stronger enemies. They also followed the Enlightenment philosophers (particularly Locke, but also Hobbes and Rousseau). Locke promoted the idea of a social contract (constitution) to balance the dangers of anarchy (warned by Hobbes) and the ideals of liberty (promoted by Rousseau).

They didn't trust any one seat of power totally, so in addition to dividing the powers of the federal government among three branches, they limited its authority over the states. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reflects much of the above: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

But what if the central government abuses its power? Does a state have the right to reject a federal law or regulation? In the 1830s, South Carolina tried nullifying a federal tariff, which helped set the stage for the Civil War. More recently several states including California and Colorado nullified federal drug regulations by declining to enforce laws against marijuana use, with very different results so far.

So what if a state government acts against the principles of the Constitution? This is essentially what the Civil War was about, with some states denying equal protection to all men. (The inherent rights of women would take longer to become an issue.) Did the federal government have the right to deprive slaveholders of their property? Did the states that allowed slavery have the right to offend the principles of equality expressed so boldly by Thomas Jefferson (who also owned slaves)?

Thinking about this in current political terms, who controls the borders of the United States: the federal government, or the various states situated along the border? If Californians and Arizonans want to follow different border policies - ones more in line with the interests and preferences of the citizens of those states - should the federal government intervene?

To answer this, think about one or two historical conflicts between states and the federal government, and one or two recent ones, and consider if you could come down on the same side on all of them (then your answer is "yes" - you prefer state supremacy or centralization) or not (in which case you prefer federalism - the balance).