What Even Is Federalism?
Two Americans wake up on the same morning.
One lives in California. The other lives in Texas.
They both pay federal taxes. They both vote in presidential elections. They both pledge allegiance to the same flag.
Yet one can legally purchase recreational marijuana while the other cannot. One state mandates different environmental standards. The other structures voting rules differently. Education curricula, gun laws, abortion policy, labor regulations, public health mandates all vary.
How can this be true inside a single country?
The answer is federalism.
Most Americans learn the three branches of government in school. Far fewer learn the vertical division of power that sits underneath them. Federalism is not about Congress versus the President. It is about Washington versus the states.
And that design is not accidental.
It is the core compromise that made the United States possible.
I. The Basic Idea
Federalism is a system in which power is divided between a national government and state governments.
The Constitution grants certain powers to the federal government. All remaining powers are reserved to the states or the people. This principle is written explicitly in the Tenth Amendment.
The national government handles matters that affect the entire country. States handle matters that are more local in character.
This creates two layers of authority operating at the same time.
You are governed by both.
That dual sovereignty is what makes federalism distinct from a purely national system or a loose confederation.
II. Why the Founders Chose It
When the Constitution was drafted in 1787, the young United States faced a problem. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government was too weak. It could not effectively tax, regulate trade, or coordinate defense.
But many Americans feared concentrated power. They had just broken away from a distant monarchy.
The solution was balance.
James Madison described federalism in Federalist No. 45 as a system in which the powers of the federal government are “few and defined,” while those of the states are “numerous and indefinite.”
The national government would handle war, foreign affairs, interstate commerce, and national taxation. States would manage local law enforcement, property law, education, and internal governance.
Federalism was not only a philosophical choice. It was political necessity. Smaller states feared domination by larger ones. Regions differed economically and culturally. A centralized system would not have survived ratification.
Federalism was the glue.
III. What Powers Belong Where?
The Constitution outlines specific powers granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8. These include the power to tax, regulate interstate commerce, coin money, declare war, and raise armies.
The Supremacy Clause in Article VI establishes that federal law overrides conflicting state law when the federal government acts within its constitutional authority.
At the same time, the Tenth Amendment protects state authority over matters not delegated to the federal government.
In practice, this means:
The federal government sets national standards in areas like civil rights, immigration, and monetary policy.
States oversee areas like criminal law, marriage rules, property law, and public education.
However, the boundary is not always clean.
Much of American political conflict arises in the gray zone.
IV. The Progressive Frame
From a progressive perspective, federalism can be frustrating.
If national rights are fundamental, why should geography determine access to them?
Progressives often argue that federal standards are necessary to protect civil rights, voting access, environmental safeguards, and healthcare access. Historical examples such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 illustrate moments when federal intervention overrode discriminatory state policies.
The core value here is equality.
If rights vary too widely by state, inequality deepens. A national government can serve as a guarantor against local injustice.
But this view has a blind spot. National uniformity can overlook regional diversity. Policies that work in dense urban centers may function differently in rural states. Centralization can also reduce local experimentation.
V. The Conservative Frame
From a conservative perspective, federalism protects freedom by decentralizing power.
If the national government becomes too powerful, citizens have fewer escape valves. But if states retain authority, people can move, vote locally, and influence policy closer to home.
This is sometimes described as the idea of states as laboratories of democracy, a phrase popularized by Justice Louis Brandeis.
The core value here is local control.
Communities differ culturally, economically, and morally. Federalism allows them to reflect those differences in policy.
But this view also has a blind spot. State autonomy has historically been used to resist civil rights expansion. Local control can entrench inequality if unchecked.
VI. Why Federalism Feels So Tense Today
Modern political polarization has sharpened federalism.
When parties are ideologically sorted by geography, state governments become extensions of national conflict.
In the mid twentieth century, political parties were more internally diverse across regions. Today, coastal states often lean Democratic while many southern and interior states lean Republican.
As a result, federalism now magnifies ideological contrast.
National debates over abortion, gun rights, environmental policy, and education increasingly result in patchwork outcomes.
For some citizens, this feels like freedom.
For others, it feels like fragmentation.
Psychologically, federalism intensifies identity.
Instead of one national culture negotiating differences internally, Americans sometimes experience state lines as cultural borders.
VII. Federalism in Action
Consider marijuana policy.
Federal law continues to classify marijuana as illegal. Yet many states have legalized it for medical or recreational use.
This creates a tension between federal authority and state autonomy.
In practice, the federal government has often chosen not to enforce its prohibition aggressively in states that have legalized marijuana.
This illustrates a key feature of federalism. Conflict does not always resolve in court. Sometimes it resolves through political negotiation and selective enforcement.
Another example is public health. During the COVID 19 pandemic, states adopted varying policies on lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine requirements.
Some saw this variation as chaos. Others saw it as flexibility.
Federalism permits both interpretations.
VIII. The Bridge: Federalism as Pressure Valve
To understand federalism’s purpose, it helps to see it as a pressure valve.
In a large and diverse nation, consensus is difficult. Federalism lowers the stakes of national disagreement by allowing local variation.
If every issue were decided only at the national level, political conflict would be existential.
Federalism distributes conflict.
It allows states to move at different speeds.
It also allows citizens to compare outcomes across states, creating feedback loops.
At its best, federalism reduces the likelihood that one election determines everything.
At its worst, it creates uneven rights and confusion.
The tension is built into the design.
IX. Is Federalism Working?
Whether federalism feels functional depends on temperament.
Those who prioritize equality may prefer stronger national standards.
Those who prioritize autonomy may prefer stronger state authority.
The Constitution does not permanently settle that balance. The Supreme Court continually interprets the boundaries of federal and state power.
Cases involving healthcare, environmental regulation, immigration enforcement, and voting law regularly reshape the federalism landscape.
Federalism is not static.
It evolves with political coalitions and judicial philosophy.
X. Conclusion: One Nation, Multiple Centers of Power
Federalism means the United States is not governed from one place.
It is governed from many.
That structure can feel inefficient. It can produce frustration. It can create sharp contrasts between neighbors.
But it was designed to manage diversity without collapse.
Federalism acknowledges a simple truth. In a country this large and this pluralistic, unity does not require uniformity.
Two Americans can wake up under different state laws and still share a constitutional framework.
The friction is not a flaw in the system.
It is part of how the system absorbs disagreement.
Understanding federalism does not require choosing sides.
It requires recognizing that power in America flows both horizontally between branches and vertically between levels.
That vertical division may be the most overlooked feature of the entire constitutional design.
And in moments of political tension, it may be the reason the system bends without breaking.
References
Brandeis, L. D. (1932). New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262.