Last updated 4 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The United States runs on a fascinating system of divided power. Unlike most countries that centralize authority in a national government, America splits control between Washington D.C. and fifty individual states. This creates constant tension over who gets to decide what—and that tension shapes everything from your health insurance to your local school board.
This guide explains how federalism works, why states’ rights matter, and how these forces play out in today’s biggest political battles. From healthcare to immigration, understanding this power struggle helps explain why American politics often feels like different states are living in different countries.
The same territory, the same people—but two levels of government making rules. Sometimes they cooperate. Often they clash. Always, they’re negotiating who’s in charge.
What is Federalism? The Framework of Shared Power
Defining Federalism: A System of Dual Governance
At its core, federalism is a system where power is formally divided between a central, national authority and regional authorities—in our case, states. Both the national government and state governments can act directly on the people within their jurisdictions.
The national government typically handles broader issues that affect the entire country—defense, foreign policy, interstate commerce. States and cities manage local concerns—education, police, most criminal law. This creates what the founders called a “compound republic,” neither entirely national nor entirely separate, but a combination of both.
This division isn’t static. The balance between national and state authority has shifted dramatically throughout American history and continues evolving through politics, social change, and court decisions. The system’s flexibility lets it adapt to new challenges, but also means the boundaries of federal and state power are constantly contested.
Core Constitutional Principles of Federalism
The Constitution establishes federalism through several key mechanisms:
Enumerated Powers of the Federal Government
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically lists the powers granted to the federal government. These include the authority to tax, declare war, regulate commerce between states and with foreign nations, coin money, establish post offices, and maintain armed forces.
This principle of enumerated powers is crucial—it establishes that the federal government only has those authorities explicitly granted to it. The founders intended this to prevent federal overreach into areas better left to states or local governments.
The Supremacy Clause
Article VI, Clause 2 declares that the Constitution and federal laws “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” This means when state law conflicts with constitutional federal law, federal law wins.
The Supremacy Clause maintains national unity and ensures federal laws work across all states. It gives rise to “preemption,” where federal law can displace state law when Congress intends to control an entire field or when state law directly conflicts with federal law.
Concurrent Powers
Some powers both federal and state governments can exercise simultaneously—the power to tax, build roads, establish courts, borrow money, and define crimes. Citizens pay both federal and state income taxes. Both federal and state court systems exist.
Shared powers require cooperation between levels of government but can also create complexities and conflicts when policy goals diverge.
Federalism’s Intended Purpose
The founders designed federalism with several goals. They wanted a national government strong enough to overcome the Articles of Confederation’s weaknesses while preserving significant state autonomy.
A primary goal was preventing tyranny. By dividing power both horizontally among federal branches and vertically between federal and state governments, the framers ensured no single entity could accumulate excessive power. Justice Anthony Kennedy later noted that “federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power” by preventing any one government from having complete control.
Federalism also allows for greater diversity and responsiveness across a large, varied nation. What works in Vermont might not suit Texas. Federalism lets states tailor policies to their unique circumstances and citizen preferences.
The system was also meant to increase citizen participation by providing more access points to government at state and local levels, making government feel closer and more accountable.
Understanding States’ Rights: Autonomy and Reserved Powers
Defining States’ Rights
“States’ rights” refers to the constitutional and political argument that state governments possess significant sovereignty and autonomous governing power, distinct from federal authority. It emphasizes that states aren’t just administrative units of the federal government but political entities with their own inherent powers and direct relationships with their citizens.
The Constitutional Bedrock: The Tenth Amendment
The primary constitutional basis for states’ rights is the Tenth Amendment: “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.”
This amendment clarifies that the federal government only has powers specifically granted by the Constitution. All other governmental powers, unless specifically denied to states, remain with states or the people themselves.
The Tenth Amendment originated from debates over ratifying the Constitution. Anti-Federalists feared the new Constitution would create an overly powerful central government that could trample state sovereignty and individual liberties. The amendment was intended to address these concerns and reaffirm that states retained significant authority.
Historical Roots
The emphasis on states’ rights has deep historical roots. Under the Articles of Confederation (1781-1789), states retained almost all power. Article II explicitly stated that “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States.”
This system proved too weak to govern effectively, leading to calls for a stronger central government. The Constitution created that stronger federal government, but its ratification was fiercely debated.
Anti-Federalists argued passionately against what they saw as dangerous concentration of power at the national level. They believed governments closest to the people—state and local governments—were freedom’s best protectors. The Bill of Rights, particularly the Tenth Amendment, was a direct response to these concerns.
The often-overlooked phrase “or to the people” in the Tenth Amendment suggests that ultimate authority rests with citizens, and some powers might remain with the people themselves, not delegated to either state or federal governments. This resonates with the Constitution’s opening “We the People,” indicating popular sovereignty as the foundation of American government.
The Dynamic Tension: How Federalism and States’ Rights Interact
The Concept of Dual Sovereignty
American federalism embodies “dual sovereignty”—both federal and state governments are sovereign entities with authority within their respective spheres. The states surrendered certain powers to the federal government but retained many others.
This means Americans are subject to two governments: their state government and the federal government. The founders envisioned shared authority where each level would check the other, protecting individual liberty from power concentrations.
But this division inherently creates potential conflict when powers or policy goals overlap or clash. Determining the precise boundaries has been a central, ongoing challenge in American constitutional history.
The Role of the Judiciary as Arbiter
When disputes arise over power division, the judicial branch, particularly the Supreme Court, serves as the primary arbiter. Through judicial review, the Court interprets the Constitution and determines the constitutionality of federal and state laws, shaping federalism’s boundaries.
Landmark cases like McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden established early principles of federal power and the Court’s authority to resolve such disputes.
However, the judiciary doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Judicial appointments are political, and prevailing contexts can influence judicial philosophies and outcomes. Major shifts in the Court’s stance on federalism—like New Deal expansion of federal power or the Rehnquist Court’s “New Federalism” that sought to return some powers to states—often reflect broader societal changes or justices’ ideologies.
“Layer Cake” vs. “Marble Cake” Models
Scholars use analogies to visualize the evolving federal-state relationship:
Layer Cake Federalism (Dual Federalism): Associated with the founding through the New Deal, this model envisions distinct, clearly separated spheres of authority, like cake layers. Each level is supreme within its layer, with responsibilities clearly delineated. The federal government handles national defense and foreign policy; states manage education and local law enforcement, with little overlap.
Marble Cake Federalism (Cooperative Federalism): Becoming more descriptive from the New Deal onward, this model sees powers and responsibilities as intertwined and mixed, like marble cake swirls. More collaboration, shared funding, and joint program administration characterize this approach. Federal grants-in-aid to states for specific purposes exemplify cooperative federalism.
These analogies illustrate a shift from distinct separation to greater intermingling and interdependence. While “cooperative federalism” suggests partnership, it can mask power imbalances. The federal government often sets agendas through funding mechanisms, attaching conditions states must meet to receive assistance.
The Evolution of Federal Power vs. States’ Rights Through U.S. History
The Founding Era and Early Debates
American federalism began with the transition from the Articles of Confederation, where states retained nearly all power and the national government was extremely weak. The Constitution of 1787 aimed to create a more robust national government while preserving significant state autonomy.
The Federalist Papers argued eloquently for this new structure, emphasizing its ability to provide energetic government and safeguards against tyranny. Anti-Federalists opposed vigorously, fearing powerful central government would diminish states’ rights and individual liberties.
Early battles over Hamilton’s national bank and the Alien and Sedition Acts, which prompted Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions asserting states’ rights to judge federal law constitutionality, quickly demonstrated inherent tensions in the new system.
The Nullification Crisis and the Path to Civil War
The early 19th century saw states’ rights arguments intensify, particularly in the South. The Nullification Crisis of the 1830s was a critical flashpoint. South Carolina, led by John C. Calhoun, declared federal tariffs null and void within its borders, asserting states’ sovereign right to reject unconstitutional federal laws.
President Andrew Jackson vehemently opposed this, threatening military force to uphold federal law. Although compromise tariff averted immediate conflict, the crisis exposed deep sectional divisions and the dangerous potential of states’ rights doctrines when challenging national authority.
The Civil War and Reconstruction
The Civil War (1861-1865) was the ultimate culmination of conflict over states’ rights—particularly the asserted right to secede and perpetuate slavery—versus federal authority. The Union victory decisively affirmed federal supremacy and the indissoluble Union.
Reconstruction brought profound transformation through three constitutional amendments:
The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) abolished slavery nationwide, representing direct federal intervention into what had been state law.
The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including formerly enslaved individuals. It prohibited states from abridging citizens’ privileges or immunities, depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process, or denying equal protection of laws. This amendment provided constitutional basis for federal protection of individual rights from state infringement.
The Fifteenth Amendment (1870) prohibited denying voting rights based on race, color, or previous servitude, extending federal oversight of state elections.
This period fundamentally redefined American federalism, establishing clear federal dominance in crucial areas and providing new tools for federal intervention to ensure states upheld fundamental rights.
The New Deal Era
The Great Depression precipitated another major shift. President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs represented unprecedented expansion of federal government role in the national economy and social welfare.
Faced with a national crisis individual states couldn’t handle, the federal government launched Social Security, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and the National Industrial Recovery Act.
This expansion was often justified under broader interpretation of Congress’s interstate commerce power. After initial resistance, the Supreme Court largely accepted this expanded federal role. This era ushered in “cooperative federalism,” where federal and state responsibilities became more intertwined through grants-in-aid and joint programs.
The Civil Rights Movement
In the mid-20th century, the Civil Rights Movement became crucial arena for asserting federal authority over states’ rights. State governments, particularly in the South, used “states’ rights” arguments to defend racial segregation and discrimination.
The federal government responded decisively through all three branches. Landmark Supreme Court decisions like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) declared state-sponsored segregation unconstitutional. Cooper v. Aaron (1958) asserted that state officials were bound by Supreme Court interpretations.
Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, prohibiting discrimination and empowering federal authorities to oversee state voting procedures. This period reinforced federal supremacy in protecting constitutional rights against entrenched state opposition.
“New Federalism” and Beyond
Beginning in the late 20th century, particularly during Nixon and Reagan administrations and reflected in some Rehnquist Court decisions, a counter-trend emerged called “New Federalism.” This philosophy advocated shifting some power back to states.
Mechanisms included block grants (giving states more discretion over federal funds), deregulation, and Supreme Court rulings limiting federal power, such as United States v. Lopez (1995), which narrowed Commerce Clause scope.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases: Shaping the Federal-State Landscape
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Implied Powers and Federal Supremacy
In McCulloch v. Maryland, Maryland attempted to tax the Second Bank of the United States. Chief Justice John Marshall delivered a landmark opinion with two critical holdings.
First, the Court affirmed Congress possessed implied powers not explicitly listed in the Constitution but necessary to carry out enumerated powers. Marshall argued the “Necessary and Proper” Clause granted Congress authority to create the national bank as an appropriate means to fulfill fiscal responsibilities. He redefined “necessary” to mean “appropriate and legitimate” rather than strictly indispensable.
Second, the Court ruled Maryland couldn’t tax the national bank, establishing that states cannot impede legitimate federal operations (“the power to tax involves the power to destroy”).
McCulloch significantly broadened federal authority by validating implied powers and firmly establishing federal law supremacy over conflicting state actions.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): Defining Federal Power over Interstate Commerce
Gibbons v. Ogden addressed Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. The case involved a dispute over New York state law granting steamboat monopoly that conflicted with federal license.
The Court interpreted “commerce” broadly to include not just buying and selling goods, but navigation and “every species of commercial intercourse” among states. It held Congress’s interstate commerce power was complete and supreme when conflicting with state law.
This decision provided expansive commerce definition and affirmed robust federal authority over economic activity crossing state lines, laying groundwork for extensive future federal regulation.
United States v. Lopez (1995): Limiting Congressional Commerce Clause Power
For much of the 20th century, the Supreme Court interpreted the Commerce Clause broadly. However, in United States v. Lopez, the Court signaled a shift.
The case challenged the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down the Act, ruling Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause authority. The Court reasoned that possessing a gun in local school zones wasn’t economic activity and didn’t substantially affect interstate commerce.
This was the first time in nearly 60 years the Court invalidated a federal statute for exceeding commerce power. Lopez reaffirmed that federal powers are limited and attempted to draw clearer lines around Commerce Clause scope.
NFIB v. Sebelius (2012): The Affordable Care Act and Federal Power
The Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality came before the Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. The Court delivered a complex, divided ruling.
It upheld the individual mandate—requiring most Americans to maintain health insurance or pay penalty—not under the Commerce Clause, but as constitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing power. A majority found compelling individuals to purchase insurance wasn’t regulating existing commercial activity and thus exceeded Commerce Clause power.
However, the Court also addressed ACA’s Medicaid expansion provision, which required states to expand programs or risk losing all existing federal Medicaid funding. The Court found this unconstitutionally coercive, violating federalism principles by leaving states with no real choice.
While the ACA was largely upheld, NFIB v. Sebelius placed important limits on Congress’s ability to use Commerce Clause and spending powers to compel state action.
Key Federalism Supreme Court Cases
| Case Name (Year) | Constitutional Question(s) | Summary of Ruling | Significance for Federalism/States’ Rights |
|---|---|---|---|
| McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) | Does Congress have power to incorporate a bank? Can states tax federal entity? | Congress has implied powers under Necessary & Proper Clause; states cannot tax federal government. | Affirmed implied federal powers and federal supremacy. |
| Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) | What is scope of Congress’s interstate commerce power? | Congress’s interstate commerce power is broad, including navigation, and supersedes conflicting state laws. | Broadly defined federal commerce power. |
| Cohens v. Virginia (1821) | Does Supreme Court have appellate jurisdiction over state criminal cases involving federal law? | Yes, Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions involving federal law. | Reinforced federal judicial supremacy over state courts. |
| Cooper v. Aaron (1958) | Are state officials bound by Supreme Court decisions interpreting Constitution? | Yes, state officials are bound by Supreme Court constitutional interpretations. | Affirmed judicial supremacy in enforcing constitutional rights against state resistance. |
| Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (1964) | Can Congress prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations under Commerce Clause? | Yes, Congress can use Commerce Clause to ban racial discrimination in places affecting interstate commerce. | Upheld broad use of Commerce Clause to enforce civil rights. |
| Printz v. United States (1997) | Can Congress compel state or local executive officials to administer federal regulatory program? | No, federal government cannot “commandeer” state executive officials to enforce federal laws. | Limited direct federal control over state administration, reinforcing dual sovereignty. |
| United States v. Lopez (1995) | Does Gun-Free School Zones Act exceed Congress’s Commerce Clause power? | Yes, possessing gun in school zone isn’t economic activity substantially affecting interstate commerce. | First case in decades to significantly limit Congress’s Commerce Clause power. |
| NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) | Is ACA’s individual mandate constitutional under Commerce Clause or Taxing Power? Is mandatory Medicaid expansion constitutional? | Individual mandate upheld under Taxing Power, not Commerce Clause. Mandatory Medicaid expansion deemed unconstitutionally coercive. | Limited Commerce Clause and conditional spending power while affirming key federal law. |
Contemporary Issues: Federalism and States’ Rights in Action Today
Healthcare Policy
Healthcare policy exemplifies modern federal-state tension. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 sparked significant legal challenges centered on federalism. The Supreme Court’s NFIB v. Sebelius decision upheld the mandate under Congress’s taxing power but made Medicaid expansion effectively optional for states.
This has led to considerable variation in healthcare access and coverage, as some states expanded Medicaid while others didn’t.
The Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) decision, overturning Roe v. Wade, eliminated federal constitutional abortion rights and returned regulatory authority largely to individual states. This created a complex patchwork of varying abortion laws across the country.
The COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted federalism complexities in public health responses. States adopted widely varying approaches to mask mandates, business closures, and vaccine distribution, sometimes conflicting with federal guidance.
Education Standards
Education has traditionally been a primary state and local responsibility. However, the federal government plays an increasing role, particularly through funding tied to specific standards and accountability measures.
Federal laws like No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and its successor, Every Student Succeeds Act (2015), mandated statewide testing and interventions for underperforming schools.
The Common Core State Standards Initiative, though state-developed, became controversial due to perceived federal encouragement and concerns about national curriculum. Debates continue over balancing national standards ensuring equity and consistency with local control allowing communities to tailor curricula to specific needs and values.
Environmental Protection
Environmental regulation operates under “cooperative federalism.” The federal government, primarily through the EPA, establishes national baseline standards for air quality, water quality, and hazardous waste. States implement and enforce these standards and can enact more stringent regulations, but not weaker ones.
This system can create conflicts when states challenge federal regulation scope, when federal environmental policies change with new administrations, or when pollution crosses state boundaries. Federal laws often preempt state regulations when Congress establishes comprehensive federal frameworks.
Marijuana Legalization: Federal Prohibition vs. State Laws
Marijuana legalization presents direct current conflict between federal and state law. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is Schedule I, making its manufacture, distribution, and possession illegal nationwide.
However, growing numbers of states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes, and many for recreational use. This creates situations where individuals and businesses complying with state law simultaneously violate federal law.
While the Supremacy Clause would typically dictate federal law prevails, federal enforcement in legalization states has been inconsistent. Since 2014, Congress has included appropriations provisions prohibiting Justice Department from using funds to prevent states from implementing medical marijuana laws.
Gun Control: The Second Amendment and Varying State Regulations
Supreme Court decisions, notably District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), have affirmed Second Amendment as individual right applicable to federal and state governments, establishing “historical tradition” test for evaluating gun regulations.
Despite these federal constitutional parameters, states retain significant authority to regulate firearms, leading to wide arrays of differing state laws concerning gun ownership, permitted firearm types, carrying locations, and purchase conditions. This creates a patchwork of gun control regulations reflecting diverse political cultures and approaches to balancing Second Amendment rights with public safety concerns.
Immigration Enforcement: Federal Authority vs. Sanctuary Policies
Immigration law and enforcement are primarily federal responsibilities. The federal government sets immigration policies, adjudicates cases, and manages border security. However, state and local governments often become involved, sometimes through cooperative agreements with federal agencies.
A significant contention point arises with “sanctuary policies” adopted by some states and localities. These policies limit local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities, such as declining to honor federal “detainer” requests.
Proponents cite the anti-commandeering doctrine—preventing federal government from compelling states to enforce federal laws—as well as local public safety priorities, arguing trust between immigrant communities and local police is essential for effective policing.
Weighing the Balance: Advantages and Disadvantages in the Federal System
Advantages of Federalism and Stronger State Roles
States as “Laboratories of Democracy”
One frequently cited advantage is that states can serve as “laboratories of democracy.” This concept suggests individual states can experiment with novel policies on smaller scales without imposing experiments on the entire nation.
If state policy proves successful, it can serve as a model for other states or federal legislation. Examples include Massachusetts’ 2006 healthcare reform influencing the national Affordable Care Act and various state-level innovations in voter registration and environmental protection.
Responsiveness to Local Needs and Citizen Participation
State and local governments are often perceived as closer to people they serve and better able to understand and respond to diverse local needs, conditions, and cultural values. Policy effective in densely populated urban states might be ill-suited for rural agricultural states.
Having multiple government levels provides more opportunities for citizens to participate in public affairs, run for office, and influence policy decisions directly affecting their communities.
Protection Against Tyranny by Diffusing Power
A core rationale for federalism, as envisioned by the framers, is preventing tyranny. By dividing governmental power between national and state authorities (and further separating powers within each level), the system makes it more difficult for any single faction to accumulate excessive power and potentially abuse it.
Accommodating Diversity
The United States is vast and diverse, with significant regional differences in demographics, economies, cultures, and political viewpoints. Federalism accommodates this diversity by permitting states to adopt policies reflecting their populations’ preferences and values, rather than imposing one-size-fits-all national approaches.
Disadvantages of Federalism and Potential Issues with Excessive States’ Rights
Inequalities Across States
A significant consequence of state autonomy is potential for wide disparities in public service provision and quality, legal protections, and economic opportunities between states. Public education funding can vary dramatically between wealthy and poor states, leading to unequal educational outcomes.
Access to healthcare, social safety net generosity, and environmental protection stringency can differ significantly, meaning citizens’ quality of life and access to essential services can depend heavily on state of residence.
Potential for Conflict and Inefficiency
Overlapping jurisdictions and sometimes competing interests of federal and state governments can lead to conflict, policy gridlock, legal battles, and administrative inefficiencies. Determining which government level is responsible for particular issues, or how they should coordinate, can be complex and time-consuming.
“Race to the Bottom”
Critics argue federalism can incentivize a “race to the bottom,” where states compete to attract businesses by lowering taxes, environmental standards, or worker protections. While this might benefit individual states short-term by attracting investment, it can lead to overall decline in national standards.
Obstruction of National Priorities
Strong assertions of states’ rights or lack of state cooperation can sometimes hinder federal government’s ability to address pressing national problems effectively or ensure uniform application of essential national policies. This can be particularly problematic for issues transcending state borders—pandemics, interstate pollution, or economic crises.
Historical Use to Justify Discrimination
States’ rights arguments have a dark chapter in American history, used to defend slavery and later to resist federal efforts to dismantle racial segregation and ensure civil rights. This historical legacy serves as caution that unchecked state autonomy can perpetuate injustice and undermine fundamental national equality values.
Federal vs. State Powers: A Quick Reference
| Type of Power | Definition | Examples (Federal Government) | Examples (State Governments) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enumerated (Delegated) Powers | Powers specifically granted to federal government by Constitution, primarily to Congress (Article I, Section 8). | Declare war, coin money, regulate interstate and foreign commerce, establish post office, raise and maintain armed forces, make treaties. | N/A (These are exclusive to federal, or shared if concurrent) |
| Reserved Powers | Powers not delegated to federal government by Constitution, nor prohibited by it to states, are reserved to states respectively, or to people (Tenth Amendment). | N/A (These are primarily state powers) | Establish and maintain schools, regulate intrastate commerce, conduct elections, establish local governments, provide public safety (police, fire), regulate marriage and divorce. |
| Concurrent Powers | Powers shared by and exercised simultaneously by both federal and state governments. | Levy and collect taxes, borrow money, establish courts, build roads, define crimes and set punishments, protect public health. | Levy and collect taxes, borrow money, establish courts, build roads, define crimes and set punishments, protect public health. |
| Prohibited Powers | Powers denied to federal government, state governments, or both, by Constitution (e.g., Article I, Sections 9 & 10; Bill of Rights). | Denied to Federal: Tax exports from any state, grant titles of nobility. Denied to States: Enter into treaties, coin money, impair obligations of contracts (without federal consent). Denied to Both: Pass bills of attainder or ex post facto laws. | As above |
The debate over federalism involves fundamental tension between uniformity and diversity values. Many system advantages stem from allowance for local tailoring and diverse approaches, while many disadvantages arise from resulting lack of national uniformity, which can lead to unequal treatment or standards.
Both federalism and states’ rights are often justified by proponents as mechanisms for protecting individual liberty—federalism by diffusing power to prevent national tyranny, states’ rights by ensuring governments are closer and more responsive to people. However, history shows both federal and state actions can curtail liberty for certain groups.
This suggests that any federal-state balance configuration should be measured by its impact on all individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms, ensuring the system serves its ultimate purpose of protecting citizens from arbitrary power, regardless of its source.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
