The Founding Fathers upon the establishment of the Union indeed recognized the need for a strong Union. However, this did not necessarily envisage weaker states. Indeed, the federal system anticipated a de-concentration of power and governance from one center to different peripheries. The difference between the time then and now lies in the fact that the federal experiment has been tested fully. Suffice it to say that despite the overwhelming challenges, America has a more perfect Union today. However, within that context lies a struggle for power that essentially pits the federal government against the state governments. This paper shall discuss the relatively dicey relationship between the federal government and the state governments. The paper shall specifically examine areas that have proved controversial for the intergovernmental relations. These include immigration, marijuana legalization, same sex marriage, gun control and secession debates. It is imperative to appreciate the federal system. In essence the Constitution in the supremacy clause vests superiority on the federal government and thus federal legislation and policies take precedence over state legislation and policies. In that vein, the courts have approached issues from a federal exclusion point of view. However, the states in attempts to create space for their survival and independence have relied on the residuary clause of the Constitution. The latter provision confers on the state governments jurisdiction on all residual functions not specifically donated to the federal government. It is imperative to appreciate these complexities that continue to pervade a highly partisan America. As it stands, the success of the United States of America as a Union surely depends on the readiness of the centers of power to compromise.
Perhaps the most controversial area falls under the immigration docket. As O’Toole and Christensen, there has been a deliberate move by the states to tighten their nuts on the immigration issues. The authors observe that while immigration was a preserve of the federal government, in the current decade, states have demonstrated an aggression on immigration. This has been explained by the events of the 9/11 attacks which necessitated the contribution of state and local law enforcement towards the provision of security. However, as O’Toole and Christensen observe, the relative aggression on immigration can be traced to the 1990s after the states saw the need to act in the wake of a low lying federal government. In the recent spate of activities, the 2010 Arizona Immigration Act is perhaps the most glaring activity and perhaps the pace setter that has activated states into legislating aggressively on immigration. The Supreme Court indeed affirmed the Act as legal and constitutional despite the provision that empowered police officers to check the immigration status of the people they stopped. It is instructive to appreciate the relative opposition from the federal government. The latter has been accused by the states of assuming a reluctant approach towards solving the immigration menace. It remains to be seen, therefore, how the two levels of government would interact on the issue. It is noteworthy that the Democrat led Senate not long ago approved the comprehensive Immigration Act that is anticipated to introduce reforms in immigration.
The second area suggesting state assertiveness relates to the marijuana legislation. The case of the state of Washington comes into perspective. As it stands, Washington in its recent legislation permitted the recreational use of marijuana. In that legislation, adults above 21 years are allowed to purchase up to an ounce of marijuana for recreational purposes. The interesting element in this legislation is that the federal law prohibits the use of recreational marijuana for any age groups. Applying the supremacy clause, it is anticipated that if a lawsuit is to be pressed by the federal government, the latter stands to win. However, Washington State Attorney, Ferguson Bob, is on the record asserting that the state was ready for the worst case scenario which was the lawsuit. Indeed, this relative aggression though unnecessary, points out the need to redefine the Union and make good for the governance gaps and misunderstandings.
It is on the same breadth that the area of same sex marriages should be considered. Although the federal government has been hesitant to give its position on same sex marriages, the incumbent president remains a strong activist for the rights of gay people. In addition, the Supreme Court, in US v Windsor gave the position in relation the court’s expectation of federal government’s handling on same sex marriages. The previous position was that the federal Defense of Marriage Act had purported to limit marriages to unions between persons of different sexes. However, the Windsor case laid the current position of the law as the Supreme Court struck out the provision in DOMA. In addition, states have become overwhelmingly aggressive in their activities. As recent as 5th of October, Illinois became the fifteenth state to approve same sex marriage. It is anticipated that the remainder states would proceed in the same line and equally approve same sex marriage without necessarily taking the considerations of the federal government. This line of action points to a hallowed assertiveness previously not witnessed in the intergovernmental relations framework. Ideally, it serves as a pointer to the fact that states consider themselves independent entities that may make their own decisions.
As O’Toole and Christensen argue, states have lately approached issues with an assertive mind. However, it is critical to appreciate the place of such assertiveness. In some cases, states have relied on the generous nature of legislations that require for their voluntary participation to sabotage the implementation thereof. This is best manifested in the healthcare reforms initiated through the federal Patient Affordable Care Act. Indeed, it has been observed that while the incumbent president may have had good intentions, his delegation of the formulation of the Act to Congress might be its biggest shortcoming. As it stands, several states led by Republican governors have refused to cooperate and in extreme cases have rejected the Act. States such as Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin and Florida have remained firm in their refusal to expand. Indeed, the Supreme Court made the matters worse by affording the states the opportunity not to participate in the healthcare expansion program. It is imperative to note the fact that the states rejecting the expansion programs have not given good reasons that justify their refusal. In the same context, millions of Americans who would have benefited from the said Medicaid patronize the cities in these states leaving one wondering why the states’ leadership could not be gracious enough to allow the poor benefit from the federal program.
Having discussed a number of issues cutting across the federal and state governments’ relations it is imperative to consider the place of the Union in modern day America. From the current literature and news, it is evident that states leadership has realized the futility in pursuing secession. Such naïve attempts and efforts have been left to the citizenry who having been disappointed by elections sign up on the online petition tools. However, majority of the states’ leadership has the opinion that America is better united than divided. It, therefore, beats logic that the same state governors and other leaders continue to frustrate the federal government which remains the custodian of the Union.
In conclusion, it is noteworthy that despite the struggles and differences, America has continued to progress. In fact, America remains stronger as a union when facing its adversities such as terrorism and nuclear threats. The political struggles and internal differences should hence be seen not as a threat to the union, but a way of allowing the citizenry their freedom to participate in national affairs. In the same wake, it is necessary that the federal and state government continue cooperating with the overall objective of making America a better place for humanity. This is because the measure of success of America is not limited to how much it solves its daily problems but by the legacy they handover to the future generations. On that premise, even as the rise of the states becomes inevitable, it is essential that they do not forget the spirit that guided the founding fathers in establishing the Union and that ultimately the people’s interests should assume the center stage.
References
Garza, L. (2013, November 9). State Immigration Laws Surge In 2013. Hiffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/state-immigration-laws_n_3910758.html
Kelly, O. (2013, October 11). Illinois Gay Marriage Bill Passes As State Poised To Become 15th To Legalize Same Sex Marriage. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/illinois-gay-marriage_n_4220793.html
Linkins, J. (2013, November 11). Residents In All 50 States File Petitions To Secede From United States. Huffington Post.
O'Toole, L., & Christensen , R. (2013). American Intergovernmental Relations (5th ed. ed.). Washington D.C.: CQ Press.
Reilly, R. (2013, August 19). Washington State Prepares For 'Worst-Case Scenario,' A Federal Lawsuit Over Marijuana Legalization. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/washington-marijuana-legalization-lawsuit_n_3781228.html
The Advisory Board Company. (2013, November 6). Where the states stand on Medicaid expansion. The Daily Briefing: Advisory Board Company . Retrieved from http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefing/Resources/Primers/MedicaidMap
