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
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
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