Imagine a country where every state or region has the power to make its own laws and decisions, while still being part of a larger nation. This balance between local control and national unity is the essence of federalism: a system that shapes how governments operate in many parts of the world. In this essay I will be examining the concept of Federalism and how the balance between State and Federal Power has evolved overtime using specific historical events. The balance of federalism has been continuously evolving, mostly in the direction of increasing federal power, since the founding of our country. Some specific events which have shown this evolution are the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Great Depression (specifically The New Deal), and a variety of supreme court cases including McCulloch v. Maryland.

The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: "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." Ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment was introduced to reassure Anti-Federalists concerned about the potential overreach of the newly established federal government. It emphasizes that the federal government possesses only those powers explicitly granted by the Constitution, with all other powers remaining with the states or the people. The U.S. Supreme Court has referenced the Tenth Amendment to lessen the scope of federal authority in many landmark supreme court cases. For instance, in United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause, emphasizing that powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. The Tenth Amendment has also been invoked to protect state sovereignty against federal overreach. In cases like National League of Cities v. Usery (1976), the Supreme Court held that certain federal regulations infringe upon state sovereignty, reinforcing the idea that states retain powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment serves as a constitutional check on federal power, ensuring that any authority not explicitly granted to the federal government by the constitution is reserved for the states or the people and maintaining the balance of federalism.

Upon the founding of our country we operated under a system known as Dual Federalism. Dual Federalism characterized a clear separation of powers between the federal and state governments, where each level operated within its own jurisdiction without significant overlap. The Great Depression of the 1930s necessitated a more coordinated approach to government, leading to the emergence of Cooperative Federalism. During this period, the federal government and states worked together to address national issues, such as economic recovery and social welfare, resulting in a blending of responsibilities. The New Deal programs introduced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt exemplified this shift, with initiatives like Social Security and unemployment insurance requiring joint federal and state administration. In the 1960s, Creative Federalism further expanded federal involvement in areas traditionally managed by states, including education, healthcare, and civil rights, through programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. New Federalism, emerging in the 1970s and 1980s, aimed to decentralize authority by returning certain powers to the states and reducing federal oversight, as seen in policies like general revenue sharing and block grants.

McCulloch v. Maryland was a landmark supreme court case which dealt with the balance of federalism in the United States. The case centered on two key issues: whether Congress had the constitutional authority to establish a national bank and whether a state (in this case, Maryland) could tax a federal institution. The argument was that the "necessary and proper" clause of the constitution gave Congress implied powers that extended beyond those explicitly listed in the Constitution, thereby allowing the creation of the national bank as a "necessary" means for carrying out its enumerated powers, such as regulating commerce and collecting taxes. The decision in McCulloch v. Maryland significantly increased the power of the federal government by affirming that Congress could take actions not specifically mentioned in the Constitution as long as they were "necessary" to execute its constitutional responsibilities. McCulloch v. Maryland effectively reinforced the idea that the federal government has supremacy in areas where the Constitution grants it authority, thus reducing the sovereignty of individual states in matters of national importance and shifting the balance of federalism. 

Overall, federalism defines the division of power and responsibilities between the national government and state governments. Understanding how this balance works is crucial because it shapes everything from policy decisions on education and healthcare to national security and civil rights. The interpretation of federalism determines who has the power to enact laws on key issues. For instance, a more centralized federal government might prioritize uniform policies across the nation, while a decentralized system might leave more decisions to the states, resulting in variations in laws and policies from one state to another. For everyday citizens, this can impact access to services, rights, and freedoms that differ based on where they live. Whether it's healthcare, education, or marriage laws, federalism affects the policies that directly impact their lives. Understanding federalism allows listeners to make informed judgments about current political arguments and legal challenges, whether it's the federal government imposing a national policy or states asserting their right to challenge federal mandates.

As much as the discussion around them is new, the United States is not new to tariffs. By nature tariffs are a somewhat archaic form of fiscal policy. They are a relic of the past in the form of an avenue for a newly sovereign America to grow domestic industry. Alexander Hamilton wrote to the importance of “encouraging manufactures in the United States” through the utilization of “restrictive regulations, which in foreign markets abridge the vent of the increasing surplus of our agricultural produce, serve to beget an earnest desire, that a more extensive demand for that surplus may be created at home “. The idea was simple: upon the discouragement  of importing and exporting certain goods, the market will respond by starting a domestic industry to replace foreign goods. Due to the tariffs, or as Hamilton puts it “restrictive regulations,” (Hamilton) the general public will be incentivized to buy domestically produced goods as opposed to foreign produced goods. When domestic production of such goods occurs, these regulations could be lifted. At a surface level the idea of tariffs seems decently mundane and acceptable, so why has there been such uproar around the enactment of such fiscal policy in the recent months? What’s important to remember about Hamilton’s writings in his report is the historical context which surrounds them. Preceding the second world war the united states had a relatively isolationist economy and with it foreign policy. The reality of being a developing nation in a pre largescale globalization world is that policy like this had the ability to function how it was intended to. What was being taxed was agricultural and manufacturing goods in 1791, with the idea that growing industry would overall aid economic growth. What Hamilton’s policy doesn’t take into account is the realities of living in the world we live in currently, especially in the ways that the Trump administration has postured to use them.

Okay, sure, we can hear that Hamilton’s tariffs won't work in today's economy, but at a surface level that doesn’t really make sense. Theoretically we could put large sweeping tariffs on other countries and increase the domestic production of goods by force. Ideologically that plan isn’t too terrible if we look at it from a purely objective economic perspective, that is, if we don’t take into account its impact on our ally’s economies or its short term effects. Domestic production of goods is an objectively good thing to have as a country. It decreases our reliance on other countries and allows us to specialize in certain areas of manufacturing. The most integral part of tariffs that allows them to work how we want them to is consistency. America’s pre WW2 tariffs functioned to promote domestic growth because they were just that: consistent. A company is not at all incentivized to create a domestic factory within America if they do not think that the tariffs will hold. Instead they will simply wait them out and saddle consumers with the increase in costs of goods. A four year period of uncertainty around such tariffs followed by the likely removal of them at the end of Trump’s term is in no way going to motivate companies to establish domestic industry when overseas production will in the long run be cheaper and more consistent. On april second “President Donald J. Trump declared that foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency, and his order imposes responsive tariffs to strengthen the international economic position of the United States and protect American workers.”  (“Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Declares National Emergency to Increase our Competitive Edge, Protect our Sovereignty, and Strengthen our National and Economic Security”)  Since then, the  Trump administration has changed their tariff policies a grand total of 21 times. (“See Trump's Major Tariff Flip-Flops—As President Raises Steel Tariffs To 50%”) This inconsistency is incredibly detrimental to the very point that his administration argues the necessity of these tariffs.  

Let’s say hypothetically we ignore all of the inconsistencies in the current administration’s utilization of tariffs, would they be effective then? Could Alexander Hamilton’s plan for them in 1791 work today? The short answer is no, at least, not without deeply harmful side effects on domestic and foreign economies. From a solely American point of view sustained tariffs “are likely to generate a rise in inflation, a slowdown in economic growth, and an increase in unemployment.” (“Transcript of Chair Powell's Press Conference -- May 7, 2025”) This being a result of our country’s reliance on foreign goods. Being that global trade makes up 27% of our country’s economy, a sudden added layer of friction to trade will have harsh impacts on the everyday American. (“PIIE: What Is Globalization?”) Tariffs themselves will have an inflationary effect on imported goods, that being the aforementioned saddling of increased importation prices onto domestic consumers. The main target of the U.S.’s tariffs is China. One of China’s largest imports from the U.S. for example is soybeans. (“What would a US-China trade war do to the world economy?”) Should the proposed tariffs go through, US soybean prices will be inflated for Chinese manufacturers, thus disincentivizing their use of such products, and encouraging them to find such products elsewhere. This domino effect will translate into the American soybean industry having less demand and as a result shrinking, as opposed to the growth that the tariffs are supposed to bring to US domestic production. Not only will the effects of such tariffs be felt in America, they will be felt worldwide. China responded to America’s proposed tariffs with reciprocal tariffs, eventually the two countries launched into what is beginning to look like the start of a trade war. A trade war between the US and China would be incredibly consequential globally, being that they are two of the world's largest economies. Reciprocal tariffs between the two mean a change in trade flow, suggesting a possible “dumping” of cheaper excess products. (“What would a US-China trade war do to the world economy?”) This would hurt other countries' economies in the industries of the “dumped” excess in that a surplus of cheap foreign product will by proxy lower prices of said product. 

All in all the story of current day tariffs in America is the story of utilizing an old solution to a new problem. Finding a patch for the issue of debt based government and negligent budgeting throughout our country’s past is no small task. The flippant use of tariffs during already rising inflation is simply rash and negligent. It’s a diversion of attention to hide from the fact that our country’s debt is ever growing and that the current administration has no plans to fix it, in fact they plan to do the very opposite. While their uneducated following may be susceptible to such diversions it’s important that we as a people regardless of partisan affiliation see the policies enacted for what they really are and are educated in our protest of them. Simply pointing to surface level flaws isn’t enough anymore. We must attack ignorance and negligence at their roots and fight for the future we all deserve.

Voter suppression is not a new issue. It has gone from blatant to disguised, but always with the same effect; to amplify the white male vote and silence all other voices. The constitution was written with a specific vision of America in mind. This America was elected and run by white landowners and nobody else. Since then, African Americans have gained the right to vote and then women, then all US citizens. The constitution however has not been amended in its entirety to govern a state where all these people, white, black, women, can all vote. Essentially, the constitution doesn’t know that gerrymandering exists, so how can we look to the constitution (ie the Supreme Court) for help? Well, the answer I came to is that there are no living founding fathers, and they left us the most perfect document they could for our country's survival. So to win over the redistricting power, following Katie Fahey’s lead and working hard to make creating an anti gerrymandering legislature a bipartisan issue. 

If you're wondering “what is gerrymandering” I can explain simply. It is a very effective means of drawing district lines so that some votes matter and others do not. 

In this image, red has 20 votes and blue has 30 votes. One could draw lines to create 5 districts and manipulate the result. Blue could in one hand win all 5 or red could in another hand win 3/5 despite representing 2/5 of the population. Gerrymandering has been used all over the country to rig elections since its invention in 1816. The most fair result of the situation is clearly vertical portioning, giving 2 seats to red and 3 seats to blue. Of course real life districts and cities aren’t this simple, but this example shows how many possible unfair solutions there are, and why one is clearly fairest. Katie, from the introduction, saw how Michigan was districting and decided to take the solution into her own hands. Someone else must be able to decide redistricting besides the political party that happens to be in power when the decennial redistricting comes around.

Gerrymandering isn’t the only way that the vote is suppressed in this country. Texas just passed legislation to reduce the number of polling places in each voting district, effectively making voting more difficult for the poor without any benefits. The democratic made three attempts at passing an anti voter suppression legislature last year, all of which were filibustered by the GOP. Further proof that the GOP will do ANYTHING to prevent equal representation. It is not so far as to say that the six seat Republican grab in Florida was not due to difference in voter preference, it was due to redistricting due to the 2020 census. That at its core shows how undemocratic this issue is. The SIX SEAT change was due to redistricting, not change in voter preference. 

We live in a complex nation where everyone wants to leverage power to get a seat at the table and then take over the table. The Supreme Court, meant to be the ultimate balance, but even the supreme court appointees were leveraged for the Republican party this time around and may be leveraged for the Democratic party next time. To live in a more perfect union we must interpret the Constitution with a modern lens with the understanding that the Founding Fathers didn’t know or predict everything. Gerrymandering and voter suppression is clearly one of the biggest threats to our democracy, a political system with voting at its absolute core. Katie Fahey understands that and that's why Voters Not Politicians is addressing gerrymandering state by state as a bipartisan issue. They are just the beginning, other nonprofit work will need to be done to make a permanent impact on this issue.