Laboratories of Democracy: The State of the States
In its early years, the U.S. wasn’t so much “United” as “States.” Over time, the federal government has become more powerful, but states have continued to assert their independence on everything from gun control to medical marijuana. In this hour, we ask: If we’re all Americans, why do states still matter? Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell describes how his state has left the feds in the dust when it comes to climate change policy. Historian Eric Foner discusses the successes and failures of the 14th Amendment, created to protect us from the states. And a long-haul trucker explains why she’d like to do away with states altogether.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Guests Include:
- Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania
- Eric Foner, Professor of History at Columbia University and author of Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877
- “Hedon,” a long-haul trucker and “Highway Hags” blogger who makes a living crossing state lines
Show Highlights
- The Fourteenth Amendment
Historian Eric Foner discusses the origins and changing meanings of the Fourteenth Amendment. He explains how a law intended to protect individual rights in the wake of the Civil War ended up emboldening corporate power in the Gilded Age and beyond.
Web Exclusives
BackStory’s “Federalism Challenge”
Federalism is one of the central principles in American political life, and political scientists have come up with dozens of creative ways to describe it. Think you can do better?
How did West Virginia get its name?
The answer is more interesting than you might think. Join our resident West Virginian, assistant producer Catherine Moore, as she travels back in time in search of the states-that-could-have-been-but-never-were. Listen here.
Further Reading
All Centuries
- One way of thinking about the Constitution: a “peace pact” among the states
- Google preview of States’ Rights and American Federalism: A Documentary History
- Federalism as a philosophy
18th Century
- Alison LaCroix, author of Ideological Origins of American Federalism, sees a distortion of history in the debate over states’ rights
- Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions argue for states’ rights
- NPR story on Franklin, and other states-that-never-were
19th Century
- Historian Eric Foner’s articles on Reconstruction and beyond
- The Reconstruction Amendments and their significance today
- Primary sources on the 14th Amendment from the Library of Congress and Cornell Law
- The post-bellum American Black Codes
20th Century & Beyond
- Recent article about the role of states in the Obama Administration
- Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ed Rendell in a recent debate about states and infrastructure at UVA’s Miller Center for Public Affairs
- On Point: States rights in the health care debate and beyond
I disagree with the notion that “power has steadily shifted to the federal government”. I find it helpful to recall that we have, not a unitary system of government, but a federal system of states and a national government (with the US Congress enjoying legislative supremacy — even if the members of Congress chose not to exercise that power). A strong case can be made that the power of the national government has increased without the power of the states diminishing. Several things contribute to the expansion of national government, among them, a) the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the states in numerous cases; b) the historical division of spheres of influence (e.g., education within state purview and foreign policy at the national level) has persisted since the founding, c) there are political reasons for the states to defer to the national government, especially when it permits the states to keep taxes down. Just because there is more power at the national level doesn’t mean there is less power among the states, espcially when viewed from the perspective of citizens.
QuoteAlthough we are all Americans, it continues to matter where we live. For example, I live in New York State and work and dine in smoke-free environments, but, when I travel to some states, I am startled to find that people smoke in public places! More importantly, Americans do no enjoy the same investment in education, the environment, employment opportunities, or access to medical because there are significant policy difference among the states. In short, the federal system is a dynamic system with power increasing and even shifting and, since the Civil War, we have much more government — state and national — overall.
When I was 18 in 1948, Senators ,by an large,still represented their state interests, Mich. for autos, Wis. for dairy products. Since then every year corporatations and international banks have bought more and more elections. Democracy is only a thin shell of what existerd in 1948. The voters have lost faith in Congress. The power elite have become more and more rich and the working and middle classes have seen their popwer shirk.
QuoteThe Civil War, and post-Civil War amendments, evidenced a fundamental shift in the constitutional structure and power, leaving states’ authority largely, although not wholly, within the discretion of the federal power. (What I find most odd is that this view is most vehemently opposed by the same people who insist that the War was about states’ rights: If it was about states’ rights and the South lost, what does that tell you?) Setting aside administrative convenience and tradition, and a federal interest in encouraging experimentation in some areas, there is a persuasive legal argument that the states are largely irrelevant (Supreme Court decisions to the contrary are still very narrow). Isn’t the real issue, though, social? Why do we continue to see ourselves as Virginians, for example, as different from other citizens? Or is the premise wrong and our identity really mostly regional? And is even that regional/state identity rapidly eroding?
By the way, the corporate elite have become increasingly powerful, but I don’t know that increasing state power would tend to limit them. Start by reforming tax policy, and if you really wanted to make a dent, end the practice of treating corporations as “persons” for determination of legal rights. That, though, would be truly revolutionary.
QuoteQuick — can you hum the tune of YOUR state song? No Wiki-peeking allowed.
Few of us can, which probably goes a long way towards explaining why Maryland has made it into the 21st-century with an official song that was already out-of-date by the middle of the 19th-century. Now, Old Line Staters are finally sitting up and taking notice, thanks to a bunch of fourth graders there. One of our favorite history bloggers (and fellow Charlottesvillain), Kevin Levin, recently drew attention to the ensuing brouhaha:
http://cwmemory.com/2009/02/24/politically-correct-fourth-graders/
Another favorite, Larry Cebula, has followed suit with some splendid state song trivia from the other side of the continent:
http://northwesthistory.blogspot.com/2009/02/sad-story-of-washington-state-song.html
And as long as we’re rooting around in the statehouse dustbin, can anybody explain to me once and for all how Oregon got its name?
QuoteYour listener Kirk Patrick asked if there were ways short of secession that States could oppose federal action, which lead to an interesting discussion of nullification. No mention was made of interposition, however. Neither of these remedies is viable, Jefferson and Madison’s machinations to the contrary notwithstanding. Andrew Jackson started to pound a stake into these doctrines, which the silver bullet of the Civil War eventually killed.
One State in particular DOES have a remedy other than nullification and interposition although not the one its current Governor proposes. Texas has the absolute right — not to secede — but to split itself into five states which would give it eight more US Senators, at least six of whom would probably be relatively unsympathetic to federal power (at least as exercised by our current administration). See Let’s Mess with Texas, 82 Tex. L. Rev. 1587 (May 2004).
There is one other remedy, which is difficult, but constitutional. Under Article V, the Legislatures of 2/3ds of the States can request a constitutional convention, which Congress is then obligated to call.
Quote