Contact FreedomWorks

400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870

Blog

    The Federal Government Was Created By The States

    The federal government was created by the states. Simple enough, right? In the era of massive federal government expansion, simple facts are easily lost. Lest we lose hold of our plumb line, even the simplest, most basic tenets of our founding principles bear repeating. 

    Central to this story are the often forgotten Articles of Confederation; America's first Constitution. For everything the Articles were, or weren't, depending on the argument, "the Articles of Confederation were the constitutional expression of this movement [Revolutionary] and the embodiment in governmental form of the philosphy of the Declaration of Independence," wrote Merrill Jensen. "With all the imperfections of our present government," Thomas Jefferson observed, "it is without comparison the best existing or that ever did exist." 

    The short-lived Articles created a loose confederation of states. No president, no supreme court, no federal agencies -- just a Congress in charge of a brand new nation of mostly independent states.  Increasing interstate conflict, inability to protect from insurgencies, and financial struggles contributed to calls for a more efficient form of governance. The end result would be our Constitution. It is worth noting that the entire discussion regarding the Constitution focused on more efficient government that fostered the principles of the Revolution, not more government.

    The Constitution required states to share their authority with a centralized government in exchange for certain protections.  The most obvious protection of state powers was enumerated in the form of the tenth amendment. Madison wrote in Federalist 45, "the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." But even before the Constitution could become law, it needed the consent of the states via ratification.  It was this negotiation that gave us the Bill of Rights. Leery of a soft tyranny masked as a central government, Anti-Federalists insisted a Bill of Rights limiting the power of the federal government be included in the Constitution.  Only when a Bill of Rights was included would Anti-Federalist pledge support and ratification of the document. 

    Fast forward to present day America. Rather than maintaining the power to govern as their constituency prefers, states are bullied, maligned and sued by the federal government for refusing to walk lock-step with harmful federal policy.  Policies that are usually back-doored through government agencies rather than processed through the Constitutional remedy of legislation. Moving into the second term of the Obama presidency, remembering that the federal government exists as a means to maximize the efficiency of state powers is crucial to future of our republic - if we can keep it.

    3 comments
    Maximum Sebastian
    02/06/2013

    Perhaps, Herr Stone, your postings would be more effective if they were less vague themselves. How does this posting take what part (or parts) of the Constitution out of context? What exactly is hazy about the assertions it makes, if any? These queries are offered not in sneering sarcasim rather in earnest intrest of a more comprehensive understanding of your viewpoint and thoughts on the subject. Lest we forget, the entire point of this forum is an open and public (...well, cyber public anyway) discussion ranging from personal liberties to govermental policies concerning those liberties at every level (community, state, federal).
    As to those vague proclamations, I submit for consideration perhaps the reason that the POCKET size copy of the U.S. Constitution is (all 27 Amendments included) only 34 pages long is because it is so definitave and deliberate in its assertions. Alongside something like....say.....the 2400+page affOrdaBle cAre Motion-er, that is to say- Act with vaguries wrapped in haze drenched in open-to-interpretation-as-it-suits-the-current-administration- subtext.
    In my less than scholarly opinion, the post is refering to the states' fear of soft tyranny of an overbearing federal government using levers such as funding for state projects, excessive overarching regulations, et al, to bend states' to its will in an extraconstutional manner. Thus, their (the states) insistance on a Constitution that definitively limits federal powers over and clearly defines, responsibilities to them. Anyway, that's the essance of my take away here.

    stonestone's picture
    stone stone
    02/05/2013

    And again we have more vague proclamations drenched in basic history. Yes- we are all quite familiar with what the Constitution says, but to then take it out of context and make hazy assertions of the future is hardly useful.

    Deniece Hazard
    02/06/2013

    ...Then read Matt Kibbe's "Hostile Takeover" and you'll have the details you are looking for. ;)

    Pages