Some Musings on the Constitution and Federalism

Spent the last two weeks teaching the Constitution and about Federalism. Some thoughts that come to mind after contemplating these topics:

1) State "Sovereignty" - You hear a lot about this in certain conservative circles. However, there are only 14 states I am aware of that can make any legitimate claim to any true pre-existing sovereignty before entering the U.S. The rest have been the complete creation of the U.S. government. Our own, dear state of Oklahoma, can least of all claim any sense of sovereignty - as its existence is entirely due to the national government. The state governments have no real claim to political sovereignty outside the national government. This doesn't mean that the notion of federalism is irrelevant. It does mean that their are a lot of people who don't really know what "sovereignty" means or how it is applied to political entities.

2) States' Rights - I believe in the federal system created by the Constitution. I believe

there are certain responsibilities that are best left to state and local governments. However, I believe attempts to deny equal treatment under the law, or to limit the civil liberties of groups of citizens, cannot be justified under the banner of "states' rights." One cannot have a "free country" if citizens of that country can be denied their rights by smaller units of government. "State's Rights" has too often been the cry of those who wish to deny civil liberties to various groups. Federalism is the notion of enhancing liberty through a balance of power that is subdivided between various institutions and levels of government. Unfortunately, too many have confused the two. However, true federalism cannot tolerate the notion of an unequal enjoyment of civil liberties within the country.

3) The limits of democracy - The creators of the Constitution did not believe the democratic process was the best method for making decisions in all cases. They believed in the consent of the governed, and that the people should be the ultimate authority, but not that "the people" should be making every decision. Hence the creation of a "representative" system. One in which the people chose some of the leaders of the country, while others were selected by officials who were elected by the people (most notably the Supreme Court, the President, and members of the Senate). Over the years, we have become more enamored with the democratic process as a decision making device, and less inclined to acquiesce to representation. Whether or not this is a positive or negative development for citizens can be debated elsewhere. But I think the shift is important to note, and its advantages and disadvantages acknowledged.

4) Constitutionalism - The very idea of a constitution implies a couple of things. First, it

implies limits on the power of the government. The specific listing of certain authority or responsibility in the hands of a government implies there are others that fall outside its sphere of authority. Second, and perhaps more importantly, constitutionalism implies there are certain decisions that cannot be made by the majority. The Bill of Rights was created to reinforce this concept. Democracy, in and of itself, is not a guarantee of individual liberty. The majority can, and will, trample the rights of minorities of all sorts, if allowed to do so. Constitutionalism is the idea that constraints on the power of majorities have been erected. Additionally, as Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, the federal courts were to be a guardian of the peoples' liberties against a Congress (or executive branch) ready and willing to trample them.

Too often in political discussions we throw terms around that we don't really understand or haven't fully considered. We appeal to the Constitution without actually reading it. This habit is counterproductive. Without having a some basic understanding of common principles, it's very difficult to find common ground on issues.