The Philosophy of American Republicanism and Federalism
America’s balance of power remains distributed; split between the states and the national government. But the construct of the delicate balance of powers does not entirely preclude malevolent intent. Absolute power that is centralized within a single individual has the potential to disrupt the liberties set forth by our Founding Fathers. Therefore, it was distributed between the national government and the states to negate the centralization of authority over the entire nation and its citizenry. This necessary step has ensured that the structure of this nation remains conducive to sustaining man’s inherent rights and free will.
American Republicanism utilizes an enumerated system of hierarchies to sort the authorities, should any overlap occur. Thus, our Constitution invokes the structure of preemption alongside the distribution of centralized supremacy. Rather than risk the reestablishment of tyranny, the Framers sought to severely limit the autonomy of government, whilst ensuring it remained unified; assuring our nation’s natural defense. Black’s Law defines the word Preemption as “[t]he principle (derived from the Supremacy Clause) that a federal law can supersede or supplant any inconsistent state law or regulation,” (Garner, B., p. 1426).
Power and Authority
In America, it remains vital to acknowledge the origin of power that fuels the federal government’s authority. Ann Bowman notes that “[j]ournalists and many citizen[s] routinely refer “to ‘the government’ as if there were only one—the Big One,” (Bowman, A., p. 50). The Founders were aware of the destruction incurred to citizens—desoping them to subjects—through centralized power. Thus, they ensured to invest a different approach, originating the power from the constituency. The citizen was recognized by the Framers as possessing a divine substance within that could not be usurped. Therefore, its structure, division, and system of checks and balances were important in the formation of the United States of America.
The power wielded by the American government does not come from the ruling class. In America’s Federal system, power is recognized to originate from God. This is enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. David Barton records that “it is sufficiently established that numerous Christians were among the signers and that much spiritual depth was represented by the individuals in that one painting,” (Barton, D., Loc. 376). These natural rights are inherently granted unto every individual. Collectively, they can be united to form a union; a body of people collectively agree on a set of criteria seen as universally moral. Thus, power comes from within the individual, ascending up the structure of government to the top. But the Establishment strives to convey the narrative that Without the foundation of the citizenry, the national government serves no purpose; and is thus powerless. After its resources are exhausted, the powerful minority will cease to exist without a body of people to facilitate the needs of the nation.
The power of the union formed by the body of citizens is distributed both vertically and horizontally. Vertically, to the local government, the states, and the national government; horizontally, between Executive Branch, The Legislative Branch, and the Judiciary. Moreover, instances of Executive Agencies; Special Interest Groups backing Congress; and both trial and appellate courts, exist within the vertical axis of the triad of power that exists atop the innerworkings of the contemporary body politic.
Federalist Structure
The structure of the federal government may appear initially simple, but it is immensely complex. The Founders were well versed in the history of government, thus chose the most reliable combination of power of the three forms. Rather than reestablish a feudalistic state; or create a temporary multifaceted collection of independent states; the Founders sought to combine the two forms—whilst retaining the sovereignty of the citizen and ensuring a relationship with his Creator. Further, the Framers As “[i]n a nation—a large group of people organized under a single, sovereign government and sharing historical, cultural, and other values—powers and responsibilities can be divided among different levels of government in three ways: through a unitary government, a confederacy, or a federal system,” (Bowman, A., p. 26). Yet, “states stuck with the bicameral structure, ostensibly because of its contribution to the concept of checks and balances. It is much tougher to pass bills when they have to survive the scrutiny of two legislative houses. Having a bicameral structure, then, reinforces the status quo,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 139). While "[u]nicameralism might improve the efficiency of the legislature, [its] efficiency has never been a primary goal of the consensus-building deliberative process,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 139).
The Constitution’s enumerated supremacy shares power within the nation’s most authoritative branches. The three main branches of government; the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary are subject to the authority of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, no action at any time may violate the Constitution, or its Amendments. Despite there only existing three systems of government, America stands significant in that it differentiates from other Federalist nations in its specificities. As denoted by Stephens, “[i]n the U.S. federal system, the regional governments are called states. In others, such as Canada, they are known as provinces. Altogether, there are approximately twenty federal systems in the world,” (Bowman, A., p. 26).
Alexander Hamilton believed, as written in the Federalist No. 17, that “[i]t will always be far easier for the state governments to encroach upon the national authorities than for the national government to encroach upon the state authorities,” (Hamilton, A., p. 81). Thus, the role of contemporary government ought to be to preserve its own tradition and the supremacy of its national Constitution; as this assures States both equal protections and independence.
But, as witnessed and experienced during the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic, many states immediately adopted the authority of the national government. The president adapted to global regulations during the pandemic, that exposed the flaws in Hamilton’s claim. The U.S. national government’s federal mandate was imposed by the Executive Branch, but ordered by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) official guidelines. Further, foreign entities like the WHO bear their own Constitution. The Who Constitution’s Article 17 states “[t]he Health Assembly shall adopt its own rules of procedure;” whilst Article 20 reads that “[e]ach Member undertakes that it will, within eighteen months after the adoption by the Health Assembly of a convention or agreement, take action relative to the acceptance of such convention or agreement,” (WHO). The World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations (IHR) is “an instrument of international law that is legally-binding on 196 countries, including the 194 WHO Member States. The IHR grew out of the response to deadly epidemics that once overran Europe. They create rights and obligations for countries, including the requirement to report public health events,” (WHO).
Therefore, it is essential that American remains Federalist in its structure, whereby States bear the authority to reject national orders that defy the Supremacy of our U.S. Constitution. Under a unitary system, the States would be annihilated for noncompliance. And in a pure confederacy, the States would retain their authority, but would face the potential for a lack of federal funding necessary to provide appropriate medical care for the sick. Therefore, the best system of government is federalist in its structure; avoiding devolvement into tyranny, while evading a deficiency in vital resources. Lastly, a federalist structure ensures equality for all citizens, as all citizens in every State share equal civic power.
Decentralization of Power
The Framers knew it was instrumental to decentralize the power of rulers. Therefore, it obligatory the distribute power between various branches of government, as “[t]he large majority of countries (more than 90 percent) have a unitary system, in which most if not all legal power rests in the central government,” (Bowman, A., p. 26). But “[i]n a confederacy, the central government is weak and the regional governments are powerful;” but this produced a vulnerability for foreign attacks without a strong national government to protect the citizenry (Bowman, A., p. 26).. Thus, the Framers designed the Constitution in a way that would thwart tyranny, whilst providing a fortification for national defense, should any foreign threat emerge.
John Locke wrote that “[i]n all states and conditions, the true remedy of force without authority, is to oppose force to it,” (Locke, J., p. 1728). Thus, the Framers ensured every centralized corpus of force would be subjected to a authority to a number of critera. The power is dissolved in government by the system of checks and balances imposed by the Framers, who ensured that no specific branch could overpower any other. Secondly, this measure assured that no branch could encroach upon another, nor could it neglect its own duties without impact to the entire system. The three branches of government were formed as a single entity, distributed across all aspects of society. Importantly, the Framers ensured that the States rights would not be lost, nor would they any less important under national jurisdiction. However, the Founders also ensured that the States would be subjected to their own system of checks and balances. Whenever a clash between National and States arises, the National government wins. Cornell Law School expounds, “[t]he Supremacy Clause refers to the foundational principle that, in general, federal law takes precedence over any conflicting state law,” (LII).
James Madison expounded on the benefits of a Federalist structure over the current Confederacy. In the Federalist No. 38, James Madison asked, “Is it particularly dangerous to give the keys of the treasury, and the command of the army, into the same hands? The confederation places them both in the hands of congress. Is a bill of rights essential to liberty? The confederation has no bill of rights. Is it an objection against the new constitution, that it empowers the senate, with the concurrence of the executive, to make treaties which are to be the laws of the land? The existing congress, without any such control, can make treaties which they themselves have declared, and most of the states have recognized, to be the supreme law of the land. Is the importation of slaves permitted by the new constitution for twenty years? By the old it is permitted for ever,” (Madison, J., p. 192). Madison’s words reveal the many factors considered when tasked with the creation of a lasting nation. Publius proposed that the many specificities lost within the context of a Confederacy positioned our nation for imminent disaster. Thus, Federalism was chosen as the most resilient design of government, one resistant to their previous experienced tyrannies they had left.
But decentralized power also requires each entity to be addressed when attempting to enact national policy. Bowman notes that “[p]olitical party polarization, one-party control of state governments, and basic policy beliefs have led to markedly diverse policy approaches. Groups of states have both legalized or banned medical marijuana, the death penalty, gun control, and abortion rights. It is as if politics abhors the policy vacuum that has been Congress and therefore flows into the states and localities,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 50). Decentralized power is an advantage in that citizens can live in a state that offers specific attributes that align with their moral code of conduct. But the detriment of decentralized power lies in the disadvantage citizens are given that reside in a state unwilling to ratify change. One example of this is slavery. Slavery had to be banned on a national level through the Civil War Amendments, (13, 14, and 15) as slavery is immoral and unbiblical in contemporary polity. Conversely, Roe v. Wade (1973) nationalized abortion, making every state forced to conduct abortions at the request of its citizens. With the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the issue of abortion was handed back to the states, proving the differences in the opinions of its constituency. Similarly, other issues like marijuana legality; gun regulation; capitol punishment; police; libraries; schools; and unemployment are better left to the States. Conversely, war; tax imports and exports; foreign policy; the power to coin money; treaties; healthcare; medicare; retirement pensions; disability assistance; and other methods of federal welfare are better left up to the national government.
The Necessary Dissolvement of Power
The Framers chose to dissolve this power to prevent the history they had escaped. The American Revolution was a monumental force of dissent that would not return to its captor. Thus, the Founding Fathers ensured that the Leviathan would be split into three ways, then divided vertically to ensure it could not reassemble under any leader or administration. The dissolving of power was necessary to prevent the tyranny from those elected to office; as power—although integral to strong national defense—ultimately will corrupt man, if left unchecked. Over the course of America’s history, the union has remained the bedrock of our nation, allowing for its diverse pluralism without invoking internal conflict. Yet American’s contemporary leaders are quick to polarize the constituency to facilitate perpetual controlled-crises, only to be remedied by their administration.
Alexander Hamilton referred to the American union as the “sacred knot;” writing in his Federalist No. 15 that “I have unfolded to you a complication of dangers to which you would be exposed, should you permit that sacred knot, which binds the people of America together, to be severed or dissolved by ambition or by avarice, by jealousy or by misrepresentation,” (Hamilton, A., p. 68). Hamilton urged readers to [abandon] all views toward a confederate government” thus brining America to a “simple alliance, offensive and defensive; and would place us in a situation to be alternately friends and enemies of eachother, as our mutual jealousies and rivalships, nourished by the intrigues of foreign nations, should prescribe us,” (Hamilton, A., p. 72). Concisely, Hamilton declared in advocation of a union, that “Government implies the power of making laws,” (Hamilton, A., p. 72).
In the Federalist Paper No. 51 James Madison remarked “[b]ut it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates,” (Madison, J., p. 334). Madison added a solution in that “[t]he remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions,” (Madison, J., p. 334).
Madison believed that Congress ought not to be allowed to conduct war; distributing that power exclusively to the president. Madison wrote, “[a]s the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be
neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient,” (Madison, J., p. 334).
The Proper Role of Government
The proper role of government ought to be a limited one. The bottom line, is that the proper role of government is to facilitate the needs of their constituency, within reason. As the body of citizens are essential for the existence of any form of governance, it is imperative that the people are not used as political pawns by various administrations. A proper role of government is transparency in their authority and their actions. The Founders were clear in building a structure that would work against itself. But this provides an opportunity for bureaucrats to attempt to usurp the federal interests for their own self-enrichment. As Senator Barry Goldwater recorded, “[u]nlike corporations, federal agencies have no financial bottom line. Inefficiency and just plain stalling are often rewarded . . . Bureaucrats often sit on their hands until their politically appointed leadership, Congress and the President, see things their way,” (Goldwater, B., Loc. 7416).
William F. Buckley, Jr. gave a warning to American posterity, writing that “[c]ivilization advances, [as] Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. told us, through the expenditure of tax moneys, (Buckley, Jr., W., p. 149). Buckley added that “[a] root assumption of the Liberal ideology is that, intellectually, man has come to dominate the economic elements, and that we need only will it, in order to have fair weather all the time,” (Buckley, Jr., W., p. 152). But the proper role of government expenditure is, as history has shown, a matter of interpretation. Federal expenditures began to ambiguate from necessity in the 1800s. The Judiciary noted of the Constitution’s implied powers in 1819’s McCulloch v. Maryland.
Two centuries later, policymakers exploit the Supreme Court’s loose constructionist interpretation, in their demands for more robustly funded government programs. Citizens who accept this notion, transfer both their authority and responsibility to a centralized body of power. Advocates of enhanced government programs will gladly pay the government to make difficult decisions while attempting to meet the needs of the individual and their communities. Critics of greater government spending are cast aside, forced to pay for programs with zero applicability to their existence. This method of thinking positions those willing to rely on the government for its authority at an advantage to those tasked with funding the entire operation. While all Americans will pay a tax, those not eligible to receive benefits, or unwilling to hand their autonomy over to the state, experience a form of contemporary persecution. As William F. Buckley, Jr., wrote, “Federal aid programs are, for New Yorkers, a form of auto-taxation,” (Buckley, W., p. 148). The contemporary system of government is designed to holster the citizenry into the pocket of Congress, allowing for excessive annual appropriations to be written into the federal budget. This design is flawed in that small businesses and individual liberties are placed at a disadvantage. In order to maintain eligibility for annual funding, citizens must reduce their responsibility in society. This willing inaction allows the government to call the shots. Next, Christmas Trees are dazzled before the constituency littered with earmarks, submerged in a steaming barrel of pork. But a single piece of pork is illuminated; one that will feed Americans relying on a persistently enhanced omnibus. What is pushed to the bottom of the barrel, beneath the annual Christmas Tree bill are the despotic forces of detriment that demand more appropriations and a more expansive system of welfare. Bowman notes that “[l]egislative compensation has increased handsomely in the past three decades, again with some notable exceptions. Before the modernization of legislatures, salary and per diem (a daily amount to cover legislators’ expenses while staying in the state capital during the session) levels were set in the state constitution and thus were impossible to adjust without a constitutional amendment,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 27).
Lastly, the national borders have been opened, allowed a surge of illegal immigrants to flood the nation. These individuals cannot be blamed for their willingness to travel great distances in search of a better life. Yet, the government has facilitated a means for non-citizens to take part in the reception of welfare. Now, the citizen striving to bear their own obligations and maintain their inherent sovereignty must navigate the obstacles of high prices; the devaluation of the dollar; and stagflation. By more citizens making the (seemingly correct) choice to receive welfare instead of endure a personal struggle, the working class who finds themselves ineligible or rejects personal welfare altogether must fund the lifestlyes of the recepients of these programs, whilst also striving to avoid enduring hardship. No life is more valuable than another. But the contemporary government cedes more (illusory) power to welfare recipients than to sovereign citizens. Tax the rich sounds great until the government classifies those ineligible for government funding, and those unwilling to submit to a unitary government—and their descendants—as the source of funding for their program.
William F Buckley, Jr. further notes that “economics—which to be sure has always had an uneasy time of it asserting its autonomy as a social science—has become the pliant servant of ideology,” (Buckley, W., p. 152). Therefore, a focus on the funding of social programs has facilitated that usurpation of individual sovereignty and civic rights, under the guise of ideology. The role of proper government under a federalism system is to remain restrained; bound by the system of checks and balances imposed by the Founding Fathers. The Judiciary interpreting the Constitution has granted both the Legislature and Executive Branch an immense authority, though still bounded by Constitution.
Additionally, the contemporary U.S. administration lacks any figure of authority to possess responsibility for any action. In Congress, any personal responsibility is lost among the 435 Representatives and the 100 Senators that are responsible for ratifying legislation. In the Executive Branch, the President smears his disasters within his administration, as the erroneous policy descends to the subagencies and ends up polluting local committees. This direct impact to the constituency poses a threat to the wellbeing of the union, and the domestic economy. The proper role of government ought to be the preclusion of polluting communities with bad policy and depleting local funding in favor of greater foreign aid and a bigger annual defense bill.
As we are reminded in Paul’s epistle to Titus, that Christians possess a duty to “[r]emind the believers to submit to the government and its officers. They should be obedient, always ready to do what is good. They must not slander anyone and must avoid quarreling. Instead, they should be gentle and show true humility to everyone,” (Titus 3:1-2; NLT). Paul adds further that, “[o]nce we, too, were foolish and disobedient. We were misled and became slaves to many lusts and pleasures. Our lives were full of evil and envy, and we hated each other,” (Titus 3:3; NLT). However, Paul notes; “[b]ut—When God our Savior revealed his kindness and love, he saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He washed away our sins, giving us a new birth and new life through the Holy Spirit. He generously poured out the Spirit upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior. Because of his grace he made us right in his sight and gave us confidence that we will inherit eternal life,” (Titus 3:4-7; NLT). Similarly, Jesus’s brother James instructs us, “[s]o speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment,” (James 2:12-13; ESV).
Conclusion
In sum, the Framer’s Philosophy of Federalism was evident in the creation of American Republicanism, as indicated by the complexity of its design. Unlike contemporary policy and pork barrel omnibus bills that offer thousands of pages filled with self-serving earmarks, the Founding Fathers did not seek to risk the resurgence of the Leviathan they had experienced; and were willing to reinvent the concept of government in an image best suited to the needs of the Republic. The Framers considered both commonwealth and national defense as the primary reasons of the disbursement of power, allowing for revision within a separate Bill of Amendments that could be adjusted with the needs of the citizenry. But the Founders did not position the union to itself become a collective command economy, through ensuring a divided government that could never collude to engage in despotic governance.
Bibliography
Barton, D. (2000). A Spiritual Heritage Tour of the United States Capitol. Bookbaby. Kindle Edition.
Buckley Jr., W. (1988). Up From Liberalism. Hauraki Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Garner, B. (2021). Black's Law Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. St. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters.
Goldwater, B. (1988). Goldwater. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Hamilton, A., et al. (2001). The Federalist: The Gideon Edition. Liberty Fund, Inc. Kindle Edition.
LII. (Accessed on August 31st, 2024). Supremacy Clause. Wex. US Law. LII. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause.
Locke, J. (2017). Complete Works of John Locke. (Delphi Series Eight Book 4). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.
WHO. (Accessed on September 2nd, 2024). International health regulations. https://www.who.int/health-topics/international-health-regulations#tab=tab_1.
WHO. (Accessed on September 2nd, 2024). World Health Organization (WHO) Constitution. https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/PDF/bd47/EN/constitution-en.pdf?ua=1