America's long, unbroken democratic tradition is an exceptional accomplishment in human history. The institutions and processes that allow it to endure should be of great interest to international observers looking to build and fortify democratic institutions abroad.
In fact, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe OSCE already sends observers to the United States to monitor our elections, write reports on their findings, and offer recommendations about how to improve electoral processes. Since our elections are run at the state and local levels, organizations like the OSCE should look beyond Washington when organizing delegations and conducting their observations.
In turn, states should be more open to allowing international observers to learn from how they run their elections. Although over half of U. In many states, there is no statutory guidance at all. States in these latter two groups would do well to consider whether allowing foreign election observers to learn from their electoral processes might be appropriate in certain contexts.
A final way states and localities can be instrumental in American foreign policy is by contributing to the nation's global economic competitiveness.
We've already seen how leaders at the subnational level are working to attract foreign investment in their jurisdictions. Federal authorities should build on these efforts by working with state and city officials to expand opportunities for American workers and families.
Immigration policy offers a useful place to start. Although the issue is hotly debated, it's becoming increasingly clear that in order to enhance our global competitiveness and ensure that our communities prosper, the United States needs to attract top talent from around the world.
One way to make that happen would be for Congress to create a heartland-visa program that states, cities, and counties can join. A vital step in this regard could involve investing more heavily in America's higher-education institutions.
Our state colleges and universities have particularly strong records of open-sourcing or otherwise commercializing their research. By increasing public investments in these institutions, governors and state legislatures can help attract the innovators that their states need to thrive and that our nation needs to maintain its competitive edge in the international realm. America's states and cities can also take steps to help American workers and families become more productive than their competitors abroad.
Efforts to increase worker mobility and skills development in a changing labor force would go a long way toward achieving this goal. That might mean reforming occupational-licensing policies that restrain workers' ability to start in a new field or relocate, or limiting non-compete clauses that curb individuals' freedom to join new firms or launch their own.
Under our federalist system, these issues are often left to the discretion of states and local leaders, and for good reason: These officials know better than officials in Washington what their residents need. But such matters are not solely of local concern, since America's economic standing in the world depends on its domestic productivity.
State and local leaders should thus take international competition into account when crafting and reforming their economic policies. On a related note, states and cities can also be instrumental in supporting American economic security. In recent years, lawmakers have recognized the wisdom of establishing domestic production lines and securing America's supply chains, especially in fields like high-end semiconductor manufacturing.
Here, states are already leading the way. In , Arizona governor Doug Ducey helped encourage the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company to begin building a foundry in the state. If successful, this move could serve as a model for how states can enhance America's economic and national security while also serving their residents' needs.
The ideas outlined above are not exhaustive, but they do offer examples of opportunities that America's system of federalism presents for foreign-policy experimentation at the state and local levels.
They also show that there are plenty of opportunities to align federal, state, and local efforts in ways that make them sources of American strength, both at home and abroad. Yet, as is the case with all policies, these engagements entail trade-offs that have to be weighed against one another and risks that must be mitigated.
For starters, America's international competitors can exploit relationships with states and municipalities to their own advantage. One recent example was the U. State and local governments don't always have the capacity, resources, or experience necessary to avoid such pitfalls.
The complexity of international affairs is challenging enough for dedicated teams of diplomats to grasp, let alone governors and mayors who have more immediate, more varied, and more localized concerns. Additionally, the goals of state and local governments are not always aligned with Washington's.
One of the most dramatic events in American history, the Nullification Crisis in , involved a dispute between state and federal interests.
The crisis was sparked by the passage of a federal tariff, to which South Carolina vehemently objected. The resulting tension nearly led to federal forces firing on the Palmetto State. Today's disagreements do not threaten to plunge the nation into civil war, but they do cause significant problems of their own. Competing views of proper immigration policies, for example, have led to the creation of sanctuary cities and inconsistent enforcement of national borders.
These actions not only complicate domestic politics, they send mixed signals abroad. The disconnect between state and national policies can also create confusion about who is speaking for the country, undermining what remains of the one-voice principle in American international relations. The risks posed by states' activity on the international stage are serious. Closer ties between the nation's capital and state capitals would help in this regard. It would also help address the knowledge problem at the state and local levels.
The states should never presume to speak for the nation or to conduct the nation's foreign policy on their own. Critics of such actions feel that when the federal government does this they upset the traditional balance between the states and the federal government.
After Pennsylvania won a federal lawsuit to block the deactivation of the th Fighter Wing of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard, defense and Congressional leaders chose to try to settle the remaining BRAC lawsuits out of court, reaching compromises with the plaintiff states. The latter is in violation of federal law. In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government, permitting the Drug Enforcement Administration DEA to arrest medical marijuana patients and caregivers.
Oregon, the Supreme Court ruled that the practice of physician-assisted suicide in Oregon is legal. Nonetheless, states are obligated, under all circumstances, to respect, defend and abide by the requirements of the Constitution, especially the due process of law. These constitutional requirements, in short, must be extended to all citizens at all times. Privacy Policy. Skip to main content. Search for:. Federalism Today. Federalism Today Federalism today has its roots extending back to the s.
Learning Objectives Reconstruct the key moments in the development of the modern federal apparatus. Key Takeaways Key Points The fourteenth amendment in had been interpreted by some to mean that the federal government has more power over the states.
While the federal government implemented the Mann Act of , the s was a time of deregulation, something shared by modern federalists today. Key Terms regulatory : Of or pertaining to regulation. Several Supreme Court cases establish precedent that set the stage for New federalism.
New federalism evolved from the Federalist party in the 18th century. Key Terms federalism : A political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant with a governing representative head. The Devolution Revolution The devolution revolution was a movement started by Reagan in the s that involves the gradual return of power to the states.
Key Terms federalism : A government structure in which power is divided between one central national government and various regional governments. Judicial Federalism Judicial federalism is a theory that the judicial branch has a place in the check and balance system in U. Learning Objectives Analyze the complex role of the state and federal judiciary in the federal system. Key Takeaways Key Points The Judiciary Act of extended the federal court system to include federal jurisdictions within states and for the Supreme Court to hear state appeals.
Madison established Judicial review which was the process of checking the constitutionality of a law. But the Biden administration has signaled an openness to collaboration. The U. Most other countries have smaller parts too.
The lawsuits filed in Portland sparked by the presence of federal law enforcement agents sent there by President Trump are a preview of the legal battles to come in cities across the US. Federal authorities have input, but states reign supreme — unless they decide to let local governments make the call.
America would never again confront a serious threat of secession by constituent states. This governing philosophy rebounded in part because it suited the interests of southern white supremacists.
The police power conferred on states the right and the duty to look after the economic, social, and moral welfare of their citizens. One can readily see the coercive dimension of the police power, and why southern states used it to buttress the legality of Jim Crow. But Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis was one of many who saw progressive potential in such authority.
He discerned in these state-level experiments the building blocks of a more just and egalitarian America. Patchworks of state laws failed to provide effective regulation over a tightly integrated capitalist economy spanning the entire continent, especially once the Great Depression struck. Thus, in the s, the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren, took on the states, throwing out virtually every state law seen as contradicting the Bill of Rights or the Fourteenth Amendment.
Many white southerners never forgave the Warren Court for empowering the central government at the expense of the states. They joined Republicans in the North and West who were convinced that the expansion of federal-government power across the New Deal, World War II, and Great Society eras had violated the Constitution and was destroying American liberty. This was the Republican Party that Ronald Reagan forged.
0コメント