Essay On Federalism in American Constitution

The system of federalism was enunciated in the American Constitution to address the wishes of the states to retain their independence and governance structure in the union. Since then, American federalism has evolved fundamentally with the trajectory being towards the strengthening of the federal government over the state governments. This submission seeks to discuss the role the Supreme Court played towards federalism during the State Centered and Dual Federalism stages. In addition, it shall discuss how various court cases shifted the line between state and federal power. From the onset, it should be appreciated that the Supreme Court jurisprudence has had the character of strengthening the federal government over state governments.
Federalism essentially engenders a government system that allows the national government and regional state governments to rule over the same subjects. During the State Centered stage, the power structure was tailored in favor of the state governments with the federal government only having the powers over what is donated by the law. This approach was rather exclusionary. The Dual stage involved a balance between the state governments and the federal government. Under that stage, more activities were shared by both levels. It is instructive to appreciate that both stages lasted from 1789 to around 1933.
The nature of cases that reached the Supreme Court went into interpretation of the Constitution and the federal and state laws. Fletcher v Peck perhaps founds the genesis of a path towards a stronger national government. In this case, the Supreme Court for the first time declared a state law unconstitutional. With the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, declaring a law unconstitutional renders it law null and void. This case was significant since it exposed the limitations of the states in respect to implementation of their laws. It equally sent the message that the sovereignty was now vested in the national government and not state governments.
McCulloch v Maryland equally strengthened the union and in particular the national government over states. The holding was to the extent that a state government could not purport to tax the federal government. On the other hand, the holding was silent on whether the federal government could tax states. By denying the states the authority to tax the federal government, the Supreme Court perhaps unconsciously laid the hierarchy of the governments effectively making the federal government superior.
Gibbons v Ogden further empowered the federal government. This was a case involving the interpretation of the commerce clause. The Supreme Court affirmed the prerogative of the federal government in regulating interstate trade. This way, the law was interpreted to empower the federal government with trade outside the confines of each trade.
Finally, Gitlow v New York effectively brought the state governments under the confines of the National Constitution. In this case, it was held by the court that protections of the First Amendment equally applied to actions by the states. The doubts as to whether states could elect to observe the Constitutional provisions were cleared. It became mandatory for the states to observe the National Constitutional. It is imperative to appreciate that substantial provisions of the Constitution were premised on a superior federal government against the state governments. Cumulatively, the mentioned cases among others developed the jurisprudence towards strengthening the federal government. Indeed, that position as it was then so it is now.