Answer:
As the old saying goes, all politics are local. State and federal governments affect our daily lives in numerous ways. Yet, in our federal system, there is supposed to be a balance between federal and state power. As James Madison envisioned it in Federalist No. 51, “the power surrendered by the people” would be “divided between two distinct governments,” creating a balance of power that would enable the “different governments [to] control each other.”
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has broad authority in specific enumerated areas, but its power is not unlimited. State government plays a critical role in all those areas that are not left exclusively to the federal government. As a result, state politics are extraordinarily important because states are charged with protecting the welfare, safety and health of their citizens (which is one reason why roughly 95 percent of criminal court cases are handled in state courts).
At least since the New Deal, however, the balance of power has shifted decisively in favor of federal politics. The expansion of administrative agencies and other federal programs have encroached on state sovereignty, often with little or no resistance from the states themselves.
Fortunately, governors and state attorneys general have begun to challenge overstepping by the federal government.
But the winds of change are blowing in states across the country. Governors and state attorneys general have begun to challenge what they view as the federal government’s overstepping its constitutionally prescribed role. In 2010, more than 20 states filed suit against the federal government claiming that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act exceeded Congress’s power. In addition, state attorneys general have successfully challenged various actions by the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies, using state politics to protect the vertical separation of powers.
Moreover, recent Supreme Court decisions provide a glimmer of hope to those championing state sovereignty. In National Federation of Independent Business (N.F.I.B.) v. Sebelius, a majority of the court determined that the individual mandate under the health care act exceeded Congress’s commerce clause power. In Shelby County v. Holder, the court held that Congress unconstitutionally infringed on state sovereignty by using an outdated formula under the Voting Rights Act to decide which states had to get federal approval before changing their voting laws. In United States v. Windsor, the court emphasized that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional in part because the regulation of domestic relations has always been left to the exclusive province of the states.
Yet even in these cases, federal supremacy lurks in the background, ready to limit the reach of state political power. According to the court, Congress had ample taxing power to enact the individual mandate; Congress can propose a new formula under Section Four of the Voting Rights Act; and state control over domestic relations remains subject to the federal Constitution.
As evidenced by the court’s 5-4 decisions in N.F.I.B., Shelby County and Windsor, the Supreme Court has been the last arbiter of the balance between state and federal power, and that balance is dictated by the narrowest of margins. Consequently, federal politics, including the next Supreme Court appointment, may determine the scope of state sovereignty for years to come.
hope that helps!
