Federalism and the Individual Federalism

Federalism and the Individual

Federalism encompasses the idea that different subgroups are bound together by a representative governing head. In the United States, the federalist government is composed of state and national governments. Moreover, Federalism is an evolving concept, because the states were pre-existing entities when the Constitution was written. The states initially retained a significant amount of power, with the federal government's power very limited. However, particularly since the end of the Civil War, the federal government's power has increased through Constitutional interpretation. What does the increase in federal power mean for the individual? Honestly, the answer to that question depends upon the individual. For example, the 1960s Civil Rights Movement was a groundbreaking movement that could not have occurred but for the federal government's willingness to exercise supremacy over state governments. However, national health care is another example of far-reaching federal government power. The two different laws impact people in different ways and demonstrate the differing ways that a federal system can impact policy-making and the individual.

From a modern perspective, few will criticize the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. Prior to that movement, equal opportunity for African-Americans and many other minorities was nothing but an empty promise throughout the American South and in many segments of the North. Those advocating a weak central government would suggest that those who were disenfranchised by racist laws had the exit option, which is the ability to move to another location where laws were more favorable to them (Buchanan, 1995/1996). However, that exit option was not a viable one for many African-Americans, because of the expense of relocation and the fact that family ties were established in the South. Therefore, critics of a strong federal government, such as Buchanan, would argue that in a smaller system, people have the right to exercise their voice through voting, and that those votes are more meaningful in a smaller context (Buchanan, 1995/1996). However, surrounded by a society in which the majority wishes to and actively does oppress the minority, even going so far as to systemically deny them the right to vote, this solution seems ludicrous. Therefore, a federal government that seizes control and enforces individual rights over state rights, as the federal government did in the 1960s, is one that protects the individual. However, it is important to realize it only protected some individuals. White business owners had their property rights changed when they were forced to serve African-American patrons. Remembering that there is generally one group that loses some power when another group gains power is a good way to understand the arguments for and against federalism.