fbpx

How National Federalism Leads to a Bigger, More Activist State

In a previous post, I explained how constitutional federalism uses two levels of governments to protect liberty and restrain the state. In contrast, the new school of national federalism uses two levels of government to create a more activist and burdensome state than one level does.

First, scholars advocating national federalism do not see much, if any, role for judicial enforcement of the Constitution’s textual limitations on the federal government. That failure alone allows the federal government to be much more intrusive than permitted by the design of the Framers.  Moreover, failing to enforce the enumerated powers also can kill useful policy competition among the states, because a single federal policy then replaces many state policies. Sometimes such competition deadening federal statutes are passed at the behest of state officials who, not unlike private actors, would prefer not to compete if they can create a cartel and an easier life. Constitutional federalism, in contrast, protects a beneficent distribution of powers that the Constitution’s agents cannot undermine to the public’s detriment.

Second, so-called cooperative federalism—the form of federalism that national federalists most admire—is a recipe for bigger government. Cooperative federalism occurs when the federal government passes a regulatory framework with or without some federal funds attached and then the states carry out the program.

Federal money for local needs enlarges government. The nation will get higher levels of spending for local projects than locals want if the money comes from the national rather than the local kitty. Think of what happens to incentives when diners agree beforehand to split the check equally for a fancy dinner. And multiply the problem by a few hundreds of billions and you will appreciate the consequences of that kind of revenue sharing.

But even when cooperative federalism is not funded in whole or in part by the federal government,  it is more likely that state officials will acquiesce in federal regulation of local problems,  if they can get a piece of the enforcement action.

Such programs also blur the accountability prized by constitutional federalism. Who is responsible for the problems in the program—the feds who created it or the state officials who carry it out? And with less accountability we also get more government.

Heather Gerken, the Dean of the Yale School, proudly says that national federalism is not “your father’s federalism.” That may be well be true, but neither is it “our Framers’ federalism.” It hijacks a structure of liberty for progressive and activist ends.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on November 28, 2017 at 08:11:25 am

“It hijacks a structure of liberty for progressive and activist ends.” Amen!

read full comment
Image of Mark Pulliam
Mark Pulliam
on November 28, 2017 at 18:02:01 pm

Ok folks, something to ponder:

1) Do we still want constitutional federalism if it means that sanctuary cities can not be countered?

2) Do we still want constitutional federalism if it means that my Concealed Carry permit is not honored in, say, Massachusetts.?

3) On the other hand, would we want National Federalism if it means that the citizens of a State (I forget which ones, BTW) with extremely lax gun laws would be permitted to *carry* in a neighboring State. Moreover, if someone like Randy Barnett's suggestion that restricting the gun rights of felons is constitutionally questionable, would we want national federalism given that some States are rather lax?

Thoughts?

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on November 28, 2017 at 20:35:35 pm

Mr. Gabe,

I would have to answer yes to 1 & 2 and no to 3; Confident in the efficacy of that old saying, "there is more than one way to skin a cat" (and to conceal a weapon, and lure an illegal out of refuge, for that matter). Today we have become intellectually lazy and too given to substituting raw coercion for common sense solution and inspired circumvention. ;-)

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.