state sovereignty

by

The Founders and State Representation in Congress

A number of commentators are supporting reforms designed to give state legislatures more authority over their congressional delegations. These are rooted in a concern that the federal government has preempted too much state authority and imposed expensive unfunded mandates. In a future post I will examine the most popular of these proposals: the repeal of the 17th Amendment (direct election of U.S. Senators). However, to start the conversation about the utility of potential reforms I thought it might be interesting to return to some of the Founders’ thoughts on who should have the most control over members of Congress: the states or the representatives’ constituents.

One interesting insight into this question is a debate over whether members of the new “national legislature” should be compensated by the states or the new federal government. The following deliberations come from James Madison’s Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787.

Supporters of letting the states provide compensation argued that there were different standards of living throughout the country and that individual states would be the best judges of a salary. A less benign argument claimed that the interests of the poorer states would be different than those of the “old States” and the latter should not have to “pay the expenses of men who would be employed in thwarting their measures and interests”.

This rationale that Congress would be nothing more than a battleground for the naked interests of individual state legislatures was rejected by the rest of the Convention.  Edmund Randolph (VA) argued that “if the States were to pay the members of the National Legislature, a dependence would be created that would vitiate the whole System. The whole nation has an interest in the attendance & services of the members.” James Wilson (PA) “thought it of great moment that the members of the National Government should be left as independent as possible of the State Governments in all respects.” Alexander Hamilton (NY) concurred and “was strenuous against making the National Council dependent on the Legislative rewards of the States. Those who pay are the masters of those who are paid.” Alexander Hamilton distinguished between “the feelings and views of the people – and the Governments of the States arising from the personal interest and official inducements which must render the latter unfriendly to the General Government” (italics in original).

The aforementioned comments are derived from the debate about pay for the House of Representatives. What about the state-based Senate whose members were originally chosen by state legislatures? An amendment to have Senator’s salaries funded by the states was rejected by the Convention.  James Madison (VA) argued that this would make the Senate “mere Agents & Advocates of State interests & views, instead of being the impartial umpires & Guardians of justice and general Good.”

The debate over pay is only one aspect of the Founder’s vision for state representation in Congress. However, it shows that they envisioned a national legislature that would rise above the parochial interests of individual state legislatures and deliberate on a common good for the whole country. The House was designed to respond to the needs of its citizens, rather than individual state legislatures, and even the state-based Senate was expected to be objective when considering conflicts between states.

by

Some Wisdom on Federal-State Relations

From time to time federalism becomes the topic du jour in American politics. Richard Nixon advocated a New Federalism in the 1970s, Ronald Reagan crafted another New Federalism in the 1980s and Congressional Republicans advocated for a Devolution Revolution in the 1990s. Our current political environment seems to have ushered in another of these “federalism moments”. The Tea Parties are invoking federalism and potential Republican presidential candidates are willing to follow along (Gingrich, Pawlenty, Perry,  Romney). Governors and state legislatures are pushing back against provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act, passing state sovereignty measures and nullification amendments,  examining ways to circumvent federal regulation through interstate compacts, and rejecting federal funds.

It is apparent that we are in the midst of our once-a-decade discussion of the virtues and drawbacks of federalism. I’d like to contribute to this debate by posting some wisdom from Morton Grodzins’ classic work on federalism The American System: A New View of Government in the United States (1966):

“The greatest complications arise when attempting to determine the locus of decision-making power. For example, it cannot be assumed that members of the national legislature or of the national executive speak only in the ‘nation’s view’ while state and local offices represent only parochial non-national views. In fact the non-national view is frequently supported by national officials, acting under a variety of influences. A analogous problem is the way in which special interest groups – date growers or electric train manufacturers, for example – will identify themselves as representing the local or state interest when the burden of their position is one of avoiding national regulation. Under such circumstances, can it be said that the state, and localities, are actually represented in the decisional process by the date growers? Even when states and localities are speaking for themselves, it is often not easy to determine whether their views are distinct from the national view. This problem is exacerbated by the universal tendency of all Americans to legitimate their actions in terms of the national interest.” (p.11)

The originator of the idea of marble cake federalism shows us that American federalism is a much more complex concept than just the interests of states versus the federal government or centralization versus decentralization. Rather it is based on a complex interplay of different governments working in tandom to solve the problems of the American people. As the dominant member of the American partnership, Washington often imposes its will on the states. However, the goal of any reform should be to realign the intergovernmental system in a way that is fair to all levels of government rather than trying to return to a dual federalism that never existed.