Federal vs. State Laws American Government Week 4

Federalism: Overview

• Federalism = the conflict and balance between state governments and the national (federal) government in the United States. To understand it, we must understand what the federal government means in this context.
• At any geographic point in the U.S. you’re governed by at least two sovereignties: the national government and the state government (plus local governments within the state).
• Example given: Virginia as a state in the Commonwealth of Virginia; subject to Virginia laws and enforcement by Virginia authorities (state police or local police).
• Simultaneously, you are also subject to federal law because you are in the United States; federal authorities could enforce those laws.
• This dual sovereignty creates potential conflicts when national and state laws diverge.
• The Constitution addresses this via the Supremacy Clause (Article VI). When federal law and state law conflict, federal law prevails — but the line between conflict and compatibility is often ambiguous and contested.
• There is a significant body of law that determines when a conflict exists, whether it can be avoided, etc.

Supremacy Clause and Conflict Resolution

• The Constitution’s supremacy: the Constitution and all laws and treaties made under it are the supreme law of the land.
• Consequence: States must respect federal law; they are not free to ignore it.
• Important caveat: States do not have to embrace federal law, but they cannot contravene it; they may push the envelope to see how far they can go.
• Concrete examples of federal supremacy in action:
  • Abortion regulation: many states enact restrictive abortion laws; federal courts test these laws for compliance with federal law.
  • Immigration: Arizona enacted a comprehensive code for policing interactions with people suspected of being illegally in the country; the Supreme Court ruled that this conflicted with federal law and was preempted, so the state could not enforce those provisions.
• When there is a federal-state conflict, federal law prevails; all state officers must follow federal law in their daily interactions and in drafting legislation or rules at the local level.
• However, there is substantial room for state law to operate within federal boundaries:
  • States may provide more rights than the federal government (e.g., a state may interpret the First Amendment to be more protective of speech than the federal version would be).
  • States may impose more restrictions on police regarding rights to privacy (Fourth Amendment) than the federal baseline, but cannot be less protective than federal rights.
• This design creates a system of both national uniformity (via federal supremacy) and state experimentation (via greater or different state protections).

State Autonomy within Federal Boundaries

• States can, and often do, grant more protections than the federal baseline.
  • If a state chooses to interpret its own First Amendment more broadly to protect speech, it can do so.
  • If a state increases privacy protections beyond the federal standard, that is permissible.
• States cannot reduce protections below the federal baseline (i.e., cannot be less restrictive than the federal rights) because that would violate federal constitutional rights.
• The balance allows states to tailor rights and regulations to local values and conditions while maintaining a national standard of supremacy when necessary.

Historical Context: The States, the Articles, and Madison’s Design

• The design of federalism emerged from historical facts:
  • The states pre-existed the National Union and existed as independent sovereign entities bound by the Articles of Confederation for about eleven years before the new Constitution.
  • The Constitution was drafted within that context, ratified about twelve years after its drafting, and took effect about thirteen years after ratification.
• James Madison welcomed the persistent existence of states as independent checks on the national government.
• Madison’s architecture: a national government with three branches designed to oppose each other to prevent tyranny, complemented by independent state governments that could check national power.
• The states proved valuable as checks on national power, particularly during episodes like the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams; Madison and Jefferson helped organize Kentucky and Virginia resolutions opposing the national law.
• The overall idea: a deliberate division of power to prevent centralized tyranny while preserving a unified national framework.

The Bill of Rights and Its Original Scope

• When the Bill of Rights was adopted, its primary purpose was to limit the national government.
• Ratification debates reflected concern about the new powerful central government; a Bill of Rights was seen as protection against this central power.
• For about the first century of the United States, the Bill of Rights primarily constrained the national government, not the states.

Fourteenth Amendment and Incorporation

• The Fourteenth Amendment was revolutionary in several respects, notably because of its due process clause that begins with, no state shall, placing limits on state action.
• This reflects the post-Civil War context, addressing concerns about slavery, secession, and the behavior of states in relation to individual rights.
• The key concept: incorporation. Over time, starting after the Civil War and continuing to the present, individual provisions of the Bill of Rights have been applied to state governments as well as the national government.
• The phrase describing this shift is often characterized as a “magical phrase” in the context of constitutional interpretation: the due process clause has been used to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states.
• The incorporation process has been gradual and ongoing, with new rights being incorporated at various points in history (e.g., recent developments such as the Heller decision on the Second Amendment).
• Notable example: Heller v. District of Columbia (Decided in 2008; Supreme Court decision issued in 2008 concerning gun rights) demonstrates continued incorporation and application of Bill of Rights protections to state governments as interpreted through the Fourteenth Amendment.
• In short, incorporation means that most, if not all, of the Bill of Rights protections are binding on both the federal government and the state governments.

Notable Cases, Provisions, and Figures Mentioned

• Supreme Court cases and federal actions cited as illustrative instances of federalism in practice:
  • Abortion regulation cases showing federal review of state laws to ensure compliance with federal law.
  • Arizona immigration law case demonstrating federal preemption when state actions conflict with federal immigration law.
  • Heller (2008) as a significant modern example of incorporation continuing into the early 21st century.
• Key constitutional provisions and concepts:
  • Article VI: Supremacy Clause — federal law prevails when there is a conflict with state law; federal law is the supreme law of the land. ext{Article VI: Supremacy Clause}
  • The Constitution’s supremacy: the Constitution and all laws and treaties under it are the supreme law of the land. ext{The Constitution and all laws and treaties under it are the supreme law of the land.}
  • No state shall…: the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause begins with this phrase and has been used to apply fundamental rights to the states. ext{No state shall … (Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment)}
  • Fourteenth Amendment incorporation: the doctrine by which the rights in the Bill of Rights are applied to the states through due process concerns.
• Historical figures and actions:
  • James Madison: advocated division of national power and welcomed the states as independent checks on national power; supported three-branch structure, and saw states as a bulwark against centralized tyranny.
  • Thomas Jefferson: collaborated with Madison on constitutional and state-based checks (e.g., Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions in response to Alien and Sedition Acts).
  • George Washington (presidency): context for national power; example discussion of federal actions during his time.
  • Alien and Sedition Acts: federal measures later opposed by Madison and Jefferson through state resolutions.
  • Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions: state responses to federal policies, illustrating the states as checks on national authority.

Examples and Real-World Relevance

• Abortion regulation as a test case for federalism:
  • States may pass more protective or restrictive abortion laws, but these are tested against federal law to determine preemption and constitutionality.
• Immigration enforcement as a test case for preemption:
  • Arizona’s attempt to regulate immigration at the state level was struck down because it conflicted with federal immigration policy, illustrating the Supremacy Clause in action.
• Incorporation and modern rights under the Fourteenth Amendment:
  • The ongoing incorporation process demonstrates that state-level protections for individual rights have grown substantially since the Civil War era.
  • The Heller decision (2008) reinforces the ongoing relevance of the Second Amendment in the state context, interpreted through incorporation doctrine.

Implications and Practical Takeaways

• Federal law preempts conflicting state law; states must conform to federal standards in areas where there is a conflict.
• States retain significant power to shape rights and regulations, as long as they do not violate federal constitutional rights or federal law.
• The historical design of federalism sought to balance national unity with state autonomy, using states as laboratories and checks against national overreach.
• The Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation doctrine marks a major shift in constitutional protections, enabling individual rights to extend beyond federal governance to cover state actions as well.
• The ongoing dynamic reflects a constant negotiation between national interests, states’ policy preferences, and individual rights, with real-world implications for legislation, policing, civil liberties, and federal-state relations.