Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2024
Publication Information
66 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 281 (2024)
Abstract
Federalism is an essential feature of the Constitution's design and structure, but the Constitution does not spell out every respective authority of the federal government and the States in precise detail. This omission has led some observers to embrace broad if not unlimited federal power and reject certain longstanding federalism doctrines-such as state sovereign immunity, the anti-commandeering doctrine, and the equal sovereignty of the States. The objection to such doctrines is that the Constitution does not affirmatively grant States these sovereign rights and powers. This charge overlooks long forgotten background context essential to faithful interpretation of the Constitution. The former British Colonies in North America became ''Free and Independent States" following the Declaration of Independence-a status that entitled them to all of the rights and powers of every other sovereign state under the law of nations. Under that law, states could alienate their sovereign rights and powers in a binding legal instrument, but only if the instrument met certain requirements. As Vattel explained, and Hamilton echoed in The Federalist, all instruments used to alienate such rights and powers were subject to an important background rule designed to avoid misunderstandings and war: a legal instrument could alienate sovereign rights and powers only if it did so in clear and express terms or by unavoidable implication. Instruments that failed this test left sovereign rights and powers with the original holder. Hamilton explained that because the Constitution involved a "division of the sovereign power," this rule was "clearly admitted by the whole tenor of the instrument." Thus, as this Article and our prior work reveal, the proper question in federalism cases is not whether the Constitution affirmatively grants the States sovereign rights and powers (it does not), but whether it includes text sufficient to alienate the rights and powers they enjoyed when they became ''Free and Independent States." From this perspective, the Court's leading federalism doctrines have a firm basis in the original meaning of the constitutional text-understood in its full legal and historical context. In defending this thesis, the Article responds to several scholars who have recently challenged our approach. Their critiques do not withstand scrutiny and are refuted by substantial evidence found not only in America's pre-constitutional founding documents and background law, but also in The Federalist Papers, the ratification debates, and significant early opinions of the Supreme Court.
Recommended Citation
Anthony J. Bellia & Bradford R. Clark,
Constitutional Federalism and the Nature of the Union,
66 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 281 (2024).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/1647