This is a question that I have asked, and get asked the most. It is not really a difficult question to answer, but for many conservative constitutionalists it's a polarizing answer.
We have been programed over decades to realize the power of the states as supreme to everything else, even the federal government. And this may be true, at least the vast majority of the time.
The left has typically been taught that bigger federalized government is better. But times are shifting and as Satan tried to use the word of God against Jesus, the left is trying to use the Constitution against us. They have a new found reverence for state power since Donald Trump has been elected to the office of the Presidency.
Our founders certainly wanted a limited and defined federal government. The reason for this was to prevent the very nature of man from enslaving others, and to preserve our liberties, as part of their larger overview of our new governmental system.
The "powers" issue has become so polarizing though, that people feel as though they have to take a side, one or the other. The battle over states power (please don't call it State's Rights) and federalism has raged since even before the Constitution was written.
In discussions with some constitutional lawyer/activists, I've even been told that the state is so supreme that once a state suppresses your rights and you have no other political recourse, that there's no other recourse than to just "move". Move?
Personally, I don't think that is the only recourse left, nor do I think that is even good advice. I also find it insulting on some level. Let's take a closer look at James Madison, commonly referred to as the "Father of the Constitution", and the others founders, and what tools he provided for us.
Since even before the conception of our current constitution, the battle has raged over this issue. The states already existed and were loosely held together by the Articles of Confederation. The need for a limited federal government became obvious but no one, including states, really wanted to relinquish any power. In order to get any states to agree, it was of the upmost importance to limit that power.
James Madison, had a balanced view of the role of the federal government in our society in my opinion. He understood that the inherent nature of man was to dominate other men citing "that if man were ruled by angles then no government would be needed".
Obviously, men are not angels, which in itself, is why we need a government. But that same need for government, run by man, also requires oversight and protections from that same government because it is ruled by those same men.
The history of this battle over state power verses federal power is not without inconsistencies on both sides, but even within Madison himself.
While he recognized the importance of a federal government, and pushed for the adaptation of a constitution to grant powers to a federal government (thus taking power from the states to do so), he also recognized the importance to limit that government as much as possible.
In what seems as a contradiction, and a rare divergence from his close friend, Thomas Jefferson, Madison did not see the importance of the Bill of Rights, or a necessity to include it in the Constitution, before or after ratification. He expressed as much in a letter to Jefferson. Nor did Alexander Hamilton.
I don't think that Madison, or Hamilton, believed our rights to be unimportant, I just believe that they thought of them as such a basic principal, as so inherent, that to include them would be superfluous. But, also to include them, would mean that that one could interpret that as a limitation to those rights specifically listed.
Nonetheless, after seeing the necessity of such a document, such as the Bill of Rights, in order to get the states, weary of federal government overreach, to adopt the currently proposed constitution, Madison got onboard and promoted the Bill of Rights within the Congress, and it was obviously ultimately adopted.
Madison also found himself at odds with Washington and Hamilton, Washington's Secretary of the Treasury, early on in our government's history.
Hamilton wanted to establish a National Bank in order for the federal government to be able to more reasonably conduct it's business during the nations first term as a "new" country under our "new Constitution". But, Madison fiercely opposed this. Madison stated that since that was not specifically listed in the Constitution, that the federal government had no authority to do it. The same phrase many of us use today.
Madison and Jefferson both praised Thomas Paine's book in 1791, "The Right's of Man" which railed against federalism. Madison rejected the doctrine of "implied powers" which he had previously advocated for, saying that implied powers struck "at the very essence of the government as composed of limited and enumerated powers". The doctrine that Hamilton felt forced to use in order to conduct business mandated by the Constitution.
But, oddly enough, when Madison found himself in the Presidency some years later, he had a different opinion. Faced with a war against England yet again, Madison found himself re-approving the term for the National Bank, that he once so fiercely condemned as federal overreach, by using those same implied powers doctrine.
Madison's argument for doing so was that the government needed this Bank in order to prosecute the war against England effectively.
This shows that while concepts and ideas are good, they are not always practical in their application. That's in no way supporting Federalism or condoning federal government overreach, but it does explain the rise and adaptation of the "implied powers doctrine", and that ideas and proposals can not always be practically applied. It may also begin to show you that these issues aren't so simple.
This doctrine became necessary due to the lack of specificity within the Constitution. I would have liked to have been a fly on Madison's wall at the time he had to use these powers due to his own oversight. Certainly, there were some "choice words used", and surely, at this time he would have recognized it as an oversight.
Madison is an extraordinary man to have envisioned such a document as the Constitution, and our whole system of government, which has stood the test of time. But, even as great as he is, it was not without its' shortcomings. Please don't throw anything at the screen yet... I'm not making a case for implied powers or federal supremacy. Just giving you some facts and history.
As in the case above, the Constitution granted power to the federal government to prosecute wars, but did not specify the means by which to do it. So it became necessary to "imply powers" in order to fulfill the mandate it was given.
Now, the "implied powers doctrine" has obvious concerns and potential for incredible abuse. But, it must be allowed in the context of fulfilling this mandate of the Constitution, otherwise the government would not function as intended. This lack of specificity is one major reason so many people are calling for an Article V to reopen the Constitution, and make these powers, and limitations more specific.
I'm not personally a proponent of doing an Article V, but that's just why some are. I think as long as we enforce the implied powers doctrine strictly within the context of achieving the Constitutional mandate, then an Article V would not be needed. I think this is what the courts try to do in their own way, good or bad. This lack of clarity also leads to significant differences of opinions and interpretations.
Broad, undefined, clauses, with lack of specificity, like "general welfare", potentially open that power up to almost limitless possibilities though. So, I at least understand the reasonable argument for wanting to do so.
While Madison was not an early supporter of the Bill of Rights, all of his writings and proposals indicate that he was a staunch advocate for the protection of individual liberty.
Madison also understood, and recognized, that the implementation of a federal government gave that government the power to overrule elected state and local officials who were closer to the people.
To solve this problem, Madison envisioned a check and balance system. He created the "Virginia Plan" which dictated 2 House of Congress; one elected directly by the people (the House) and the other elected by the House.
He insisted that the proposed national government must be the supreme power with a negative over state legislatures, but with limitations. This plan was supported by larger states.
But, smaller states supported the NJ plan which called for one legislature and equal representation for each state (like the Senate today), no matter the size. "The Great Compromise" was struck and we have the system that we have today.
The Checks and Balances
Madison envisioned multiple layers of checks and balances to ensure the best chance for people's rights to be protected (the more the better). The House was to be elected by the people, the Senate was to be elected by the States (later changed by the 17th amendment), and the President was to be elected by the States through an electoral process (not a democratic election by the people that we have today).
I contend that the latter should not include the democratic process that we have today, but as intended, the President should be elected/appointed by the representatives of our States. State Representatives chose the electors in the electoral college (changed in 1800).
State Senators were chosen by the State representatives to represent the State's interests in Congress, not directly the people's interests(that was the House). This was changed in 1913.
As you can see, some changes over the years has made our country more democratic. The idea the framers had was to make each elected official, elected by a different process and to represent different things. It may sound confusing, but there was a purpose.
This gave us the most broad representation, and also prevented any one particular group or majority from becoming dominant. Circumventing these processes of checks, has made us more vulnerable and actually provides less representation.
The idea of the framers was to place the emphasis on the elected officials of our state governments and those who govern our day-to-day lives. This process would also ensure that the State is represented properly on a federal level.
If you take the case of modern day Virginia. The Governor is Democrat, as are the majority of federal representatives, but the local representatives, that represent the people in the state house, are mostly Republican.
According to the intended process by our founders, it is likely that the state house would have voted for President Trump in the 2016 election because the representatives at the state level lean more conservative, and thus would have elected a representative of our state to better reflect the people and therefore state's interests as a whole.
So, Madison's vision was to have multiple checks and layers of the federal government to ensure the equal representation of the people (House), the States (Senate), and a President, elected by the States, to do the State's collective bidding in the matter of commerce, foreign wars, and treaties.
The President was never intended to do the bidding of the "people", in democratic terms, but rather to represent the States to the rest of the world.
The judicial branch was a check on them all (including the states), the President has veto power over Congress, and Congress has a 2/3rds majority that can over-ride a President's veto. Congress can also remove a member of the judiciary as they are only there based on "good behavior" in accordance with the Constitution. Likewise, the states/people could remove their representative, the President, if both the House/Senate agree.
All of this may seem a bit of a divergence from the issue, but it's important to understand the framer's vision and intent on how the checks and balances were supposed to work and why they are so important. You can read more on this interesting topic (Click Here).
The Federalist Papers
What are the Federalist papers? These are often referred to by Constitutional authors, scholars and activists, to provide "context" to Constitutional arguments; To provide insight into the thinking of the framers.
The Federalist (later known as The Federalist Papers) is a collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the United States Constitution.
So just keep in mind that while these papers do provide us valuable insights, they are also advertisements (in today's terms) intended to promote the ratification of the new Constitution, and actually give power to, through the creation of, a new federal government.
In the Federalist #9, Alexander Hamilton, the writer of most of the Federalist papers, we see that Hamilton's idea of federalism stems from his belief that there should be ways of solving all problems that the government may have. This is seen through the checks and balances, and the distribution of power that Hamilton suggests should be present in the country.
Often quoted by patriot activists in this country is the last resort option, as Jefferson put it, "that the tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
While this is no doubt true, and that tree has seen it's share, Hamilton and later affirmed by Madison, wanted this to be an absolute last resort. They wanted to put in place mechanisms where people always had avenues and options to resolve political issues through peaceful political means.
Madison expounded on Hamilton's idea in Federalist #10. Both identified the pros and cons of different systems, and what the potential options are to resolve each issue.
Madison feared the formation of a certain kind of faction. Recognizing that the country's wealthiest property owners formed a minority, and that the country's unpropertied classes formed a majority.
Madison feared that the unpropertied classes would come together to form a majority faction that gained control of the government. Against "the minor party," there could emerge "an interested and overbearing majority," Madison warns.
Specifically, Madison feared that the unpropertied classes would use their majority power to implement a variety of measures that redistributed wealth. There could be "a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project," Madison says.
In short, Madison feared that a majority faction of the unpropertied classes might emerge to redistribute wealth and property in a way that benefited the majority of the population at the expense of the country's richest and wealthiest people. Sound familiar?
The only way to counter this, was to control it's effects, or limit freedom (that comes with a democracy) Madison and Hamilton promoted the idea of a large and diverse Republic in papers 9 ,10, and later in 51, to control these effects.
They wanted a large republic, to create diversity among these factions. Large enough to counter the "factions" but not too large that common goals and objectives could not be maintained among the states and maintain the union. A delicate balance no doubt.
Federalism, in their opinion, was part of the solution. These papers go into more detail about all of the concerns, and the pitfalls, of a democracy in a pure form, and the potential resolutions to these problems.
As we have strayed from their original intent over the years, and moved to a more pure form of democracy, we can easily see their warnings coming to life.
Madison's solution of a large diverse republic, with de-centralized and layered governments, with checks and balances didn't end there with those defined above.
In Federalist paper #51, Madison explains that in a balanced Republican system, that smaller governments (state/local) will have more of a tendency to trample the rights of the minority.
In Madison's attempt to promote a federal government, he warns us about excessive state power. This is something state's power advocates never want to discuss, unfortunately. I think it is important to keep a more balanced view of what the framer's actually intended.
Madison expounds on the ideas in #9 & 10 and writes in Federalist #51:" In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful."
In support of a large diverse republic, and the federal government's power to protect our rights, he continues, "It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE."
Madison is taking a balanced approach to the republican system of government with a desire to have as many checks and balances, on every level, as possible to ensure the rights of citizens are ensured.
The federal government must be kept in check with limited powers and multiple checks and balances, while also being given the power to step in and protect the people when a homogenous majority of a State and/or local government tramples the rights of citizens.
It is certainly the nature of a homogenous society in smaller areas to interfere with the rights of minorities, outcasts, and dissenters, as he explained.
I believe that Madison was expressing, as Adam Linkler, constitutional author and scholar, said in the 2016 Annual Western Chapters Conference of the Federalist Society (see full video here), that the Federal government moves slower and is less likely to trample rights because the federal government has more voices represented than those on a local level.
He contends, in a study he wrote on free speech, that this is represented by the fact that federal laws, or regulations, regarding rights were upheld by courts much more often that those on a state and local level.
He also contends that state and local laws do not get the constitutional scrutiny that federal laws do. Of course, that's not to say that the federal government is perfect either, or that there aren't other arguments to oppose Linkler's view.
Linkler himself recognized a more balanced approach with protective functions of both states, and the federal government.
Madison was unique, in my view at least according to today's terms, in that while there were fervent supporters on each side of this power debate, I believe that Madison found himself somewhere in the middle, while still holding strongly to the protections of individual liberties. He fought diligently to provide protections for the people's rights while balancing the need for a federal centralized government with the necessity of a state/local government.
Some of the Anti-federalists were Samuel Adams, George Mason, Patrick Henry, all of whom lobbied against ratification of the constitution primarily due to a lack of a Bill of Rights.
This just demonstrates that many of our greatest founders had different approaches to accomplish similar goals. But, all had a passion for protections. The Bill of Rights solved most of those issues.
I believe that the goal of Madison, in regard to establishing a necessary but limited federal government, was to do so in a way that provided for every opportunity to protect civil liberties. Whether that protection came from the state government or the federal government, or both.
The Constitution is supposed to make it easier to expand liberties, but difficult to restrict them. As part of the check and balance system the states could fight back against the federal government when they think it has overreached, and the federal government can do the same to states.
This is a system of maximum protection that I believe that Madison, and the other founders, envisioned for their new governmental system.
Applying these principals today using the tools they gave us
Free Speech and Assembly
How do these principals apply to today's violations of various civil liberties? We saw not too long ago in St. Louis, Missouri, where the federal government, via the department of Justice, stepped in to investigate potential violations of civil liberties regarding minorities of color by the city's police department.
A study was done, and changes agreed to by both parties, in order to try to remedy any violations found. This is how it is supposed to work on a federal level.
But there's a couple of other situations that we have seen ongoing for some time without resolution, or even comment from anyone in any federal agency.
We have seen the first amendment trampled in liberal states/areas of the country as it pertains to conservatives. The majority is liberal, and they are denying the ability, and free exercise of, conservative free speech, and the right to assemble.
These are not one-off, or accidental violations, it's systemic. These are mandated and directed by city officials, like the mayor, down through their unelected police officials.
It's also done through the regulatory process...permitting, or the lack of permitting.
Some of the worst cases are coming from cities like Berkley, CA, as well as, Portland and Seattle Washington. It is, in my opinion exactly the fear Madison stated above.
That homogenous localities are more likely to trample the rights of the minorities in a smaller area. And, in this case, the protection of those political minorities falls to the federal government, as in the case in St. Louis, when the local and state officials refuse to act.
In fact, it is imperative, it is required, it is their very duty to do so according to the oath of office they took to defend the constitution.
The judiciary has ruled that the government at all levels can "reasonably" regulate our freedoms. That is where things get muddy and have become open for a wide variety of interpretation. Which leads us to our next issue...Gun Control.
It appears that the in leu of President Trump being in office, that the left has suddenly found a new passion for local and state government powers.
They have been moving at break neck speeds to pass legislation protecting abortion rights, and restricting the second amendment, and all sorts of other legislation and violations to combat federal authority.
So many ridiculous laws have been passed on state levels restricting the ownership, use, and ability to carry or travel with guns, that it has, in my opinion, become unpractical to reasonably exercise those individual rights in many areas. One of the things we tend to overlook is how the citizens of any minority are being affected in these areas, maybe because it's not happening on our local levels.
Because the judiciary has ruled in the past, that the governments on all levels are allowed to reasonably regulate our rights (which I don't agree with), then that has given the green light for all of the States to go hog wild on pressing the issue as far as they think they can get away with in restricting this right. This is one part of the problem.
Even on a local level, just driving down the road can be a challenge for many, as you pass from one city into another; you have to stop and unload your firearm, then reload it again when you enter into another, and somehow you are supposed to be able to keep up with every local ordinance of every locality that you drive though. See where I'm going?
One big fear of State's power proponents is that in allowing the federal government to come in, with inevitable lawsuits through the judiciary, that these liberally minded lower court judges, who have already allowed restrictions on our rights to begin with, with make an "ultimate" ruling that will affirm these greater restrictions permanently, and of course only lead to further restrictions.
I get that, but that reasoning is based on a completely different failure of the system that I will get to later.
Though, this is often why you hear these activist proponents only pushing to change the political atmosphere in the state and local level as a way to deal with this issue. I always promote that the emphasis should be placed on our local and state governments. But, there's more to it than just that.
While the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of gun rights in heavily restricted places like Washington D.C., other restrictions have been upheld later by lower courts.
Many areas have sought every avenue in order to make life difficult for gun owners. Constantly changing laws and more restrictive gun measures, permitting, and tax routes. Even targeting and limiting ammunition. The judiciary has really opened a can of worms by allowing rights to be regulated.
This all stems from an earlier fear of allowing citizens to have firearms without limitation. There's not a person on either side of the political isle that would allow this, so therefore there is no pressure to rule in favor of the people on this issue. But, by not ruling in favor of the people, in the past, regarding the regulation of rights, the judiciary has created a whole other set of problems.
The courts, seemingly, tried to correct this. A recent Supreme Court opinion in 2008 case of D.C. v Heller Justice Scalia stated,"...We start therefore with a strong presumption that the second amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans".
This was a vast departure from earlier SCOTUS rulings which leaned toward the "militia" aspect while others yet determined that it only applied to restrict Congress from making laws against it, not states.
Since it was viewed then to be a privilege, and not an individual right, states were allowed to make whatever laws and regulations they deemed appropriate.
You would think that the clarity provided by Scalia's statement, as the ruling majority opinion, that would have ended all of this.
That if the second amendment in fact applies to individual American citizens, then so does the "shall not be infringed" part of the amendment, which is what I believe was the intent.
This overturns prior rulings that denoted this right as a "privilege" and thus a states authority the legislate controls over it.
In 2010, SCOTUS again reaffirmed the right to keep and bear arms of every American in every state, in McDonald v Chicago.
But since this 2010 opinion by the Supreme Court, they have not accepted any major cases relative to the second amendment. Frankly, they shouldn't have to. I think their most recent opinions could not be more clear.
But, what has happened is that many lower courts continue to rule in opposition to the recent higher court rulings, and they have gone uncontested with SCOUTS's silence.
This has left courts like the infamous 9th circuit court to rule by a majority of a few and take an ax to those rights.
Other cases in NY, NJ, and MD are all backing up the right of states and localities to decide whether to permit gun rights or not based on "good cause".
So, again, by not taking up any new cases, SCOTUS has left states and the lower courts to trample their own previous rulings without challenge. I think it is time for them to once again step up to the plate and put and end to all this mess.
How are these states allowed to ignore these opinions? Nullification. An issue often promoted by state supremacy advocates; this constitutionally minded solution has been turned against us to be used to take away our rights.
Nullification in these cases, however, I believe is being misused. Nullification is the right of a state to ignore federal laws that are unconstitutional.
But, in these cases, states are using nullification, and the presumed supremacy of the states, to ignore constitutional rights, and opinions of the Supreme Court to uphold those constitutional rights. Totally backwards of it's intent.
So, what do you do when your city, town, or state has become so overwhelmingly liberal that, like Madison described above, your rights as a minority in that state are being completely trampled by the majority?
If you are not provided a right to free speech or assembly, how are you going to ever change anything on a local level if no one can hear you?
The surprising answer I received from one Constitutional attorney who is a sole proponent of state supremacy is to "move".
Moving for many people is not necessarily an easy thing. Many factors weigh into that. Family, jobs, the cost involved with doing so, to name a few.
While I understand this greater fear of the judiciary gone wild. I also believe strongly that we should be working on our local and state governments, as a priority, to create the kind of lifestyle we want in our area.
I also believe in the supremacy, at least certainly "ultimately", of the states. But, there are thresholds, at which point, change through the political process is no longer practical on a local level when even the most basic of constitutional rights are being violated.
I'm not sure what the federal government is waiting for. President Trump has made a massive number of appointments to lower courts, but there are still many liberal slayers of the constitution on the bench.
Yet another tool that we the people are not using, is to remove these unconstitutional judges.
They are lifetime appointments, but only on "good behavior" in regard to upholding the Constitution. Destroying the Constitution and violating the oath of office, to me, is not "good behavior".
But, no one does anything. This is an area that I believe the state and the federal government should be challenging.
It is a comprehensive failure of both, state and federal governments, to not use the tools available to hold people accountable.
We have sure seen this in Congress often. Investigation after investigation, and no one is ever prosecuted. It's systemic failure.
Other issues like the failure to enforce immigration laws, and sanctuary states/cities, is an area that I believe other states should be challenging, as a breach of contract. The Constitution is after all, a contract between the states, and is viewed as such.
Illegal immigration violations allowed by one state affects all states, because of the free movement of citizens that we all have between the states.
I've addressed some other issues like freedom of speech as it pertains to businesses and corporations in my other article (Click Here)These are really different circumstances as it comes down to one person's right against another's, and not just one's particular individual liberty that we are focused on here.
What can we do?
I think Madison would like for us to use all the tools available. But, for many, they are either on the side or the other of the federal/ state supremacy issue, and don't believe that there is any middle ground, or at least are not willing to concede any.
The truth is that there is, and it's been used, even recently as I pointed out in St. Louis. But, when you put yourself in one box, or the other, and it gets turned against you, then your only option then is to just "move".
Repression leads to revolt. There are two choices left. Either the federal government steps in, and does as it is required to do by the Constitution, and protect the rights of citizens, or the citizens revolt.
This may be in the form of peaceful demonstrations, but if peaceful demonstrations are the rights being denied, then the only recourse, at that point, is insurrection in a physical and violent manner.
If the federal government does not want to deal with an armed insurrection of millions of people, then they, and the courts, need to step in and do their mandated duty according to the Constitution.
We must hold our elected officials accountable for the systemic failures to use the tools, and just cause, granted by the Constitution for it's preservation.
Allowing corrupt officials to remain in positions of power and influence, allowing judges who not only rule against the Constitution, but spit on it. Literally, in some cases, judges openly say they do not believe in the Constitution that they swore and oath to uphold.
In my opinion, this is allowed to continue because politicians fear that these removals will be viewed as some form of political motivation, or retaliation, and will reflect negatively on them in the next election. But, it is their lack of backbone that is destroying our country.
In the meantime, there are still other avenues. States could sue other states. A simple call from the President's office to the Department of Justice could spark a civil liberties lawsuit by the federal government against those offending states.
Maybe the substantial weight of the federal government, backed by substantial resources, will finally prove motivation enough for the Supreme Court to finally take action.
The point is, not to box yourself into a corner and refuse to use all the tools that the framers gave us. Let us exhaust every avenue for political resolution before we reach the point where we feel that the tree of liberty must yet again be refreshed. The latter is an option that will not be good for anyone in this country, or the country as a whole.
Of course, there's always the option to just move, and move, and maybe move again.
Additional resources for this topic:
2019 The Federalist Society: What are the limits of local control?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6zlWeheoXg&t=257s
2016 The Federalist Society: Federal Power verses State Power https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PQs8jM0lzc
The Federalist papers #51 https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/the-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-51/
As always, thank you. I endeavor whole-heartedly to try to bring you the truth as I see it, whatever that may be. But, this is a complex issue. If you disagree, or have other sources, please comment below for the benefit of all who are seeking the truth. If you agree, then please share, so that others may also learn the truth and be empowered. -Crash