Progressives Should Embrace Federalism — Redefined

By Brooke Obie, Online Communications Director

Damon Root over at Reason.com has posted an interesting piece that rightly points out that progressives should embrace federalism more than they seem to. We at Constitutional Accountability Center have been making that point for six years now, dating back to our predecessor organization’s publication of the book: Redefining Federalism: Listening to the States in Shaping ‘Our Federalism.’

But we should note that federalism means different things to different people. To some, it represents a zero sum game, where every exercise of federal power cuts into the sovereignty of the states.  To the Bush Administration, “federalism” seemed to be an excuse for federal law to aggressively override state law. But if we hope to stay true to our Constitution’s concept of federalism — based on its text and history — we should define federalism as “the appropriate allocation of authority between our federal government, on the one hand, and our state, regional, and local governments, on the other,” as we explain in Redefining Federalism.

Thankfully, the Obama Administration has been advancing this “good government” vision of federalism. As we noted on our sister site, Warming Law, President Obama issued a memorandum to agency and department heads in May 2009, effectively reversing the controversial Bush Administration policy of belligerently using federal law to displace state law.  Similarly, in the biggest Supreme Court preemption cases this Term – Williamson v. Mazda Motor – the Administration has argued in favor of preserving state trial court rulings as a supplement to federal motor safety laws.

Progressives should embrace a form of federalism that is neutral, not one that is wielded about as a political weapon, one that allows the states to be laboratories of democracy without unduly inhibiting the federal government from acting to solve national problems.  This constitutional federalism should appeal not only to progressives, but to all across the political spectrum who claim to uphold the text and history of our Constitution.

More from

Rule of Law
July 25, 2024

USA: ‘The framers of the constitution envisioned an accountable president, not a king above the law’

CIVICUS
CIVICUS discusses the recent US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity and its potential impact...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Access to Justice
July 23, 2024

Bissonnette and the Future of Federal Arbitration

The Regulatory Review
Every year, there are a handful of Supreme Court cases that do not make headlines...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
July 19, 2024

US Supreme Court is making it harder to sue – even for conservatives

Reuters
July 19 (Reuters) - Over its past two terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has put an end...
By: David H. Gans, Andrew Chung
Rule of Law
July 18, 2024

RELEASE: Sixth Circuit Panel Grapples with Effect of Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Decision on Title X Regulation

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
July 17, 2024

Family Planning Fight Poised to Test Scope of Chevron Rollback

Bloomberg Law
Justices made clear prior Chevron-based decisions would stand Interpretations of ambiguous laws no longer given deference...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Mary Anne Pazanowski
Rule of Law
July 15, 2024

Not Above the Law Coalition On Judge Cannon Inappropriately Dismissing Classified Documents Case Against Trump

WASHINGTON — Today, following reports that Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against...
By: Praveen Fernandes