Are states worth our time? Could the United States function as efficiently if states were dissolved? Ultimately, states are necessary for our federal government to function. Since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, Founders believed in a division between governments to ensure no single entity would gain power. While a division between levels of government is needed to secure the rights of citizens, history has indicated a struggle for power between national and state institutions. The existence of competition for power significantly shifted interpretations of the constitution through policy changes, Supreme Court rulings, and the nature of specific presidencies. The ever-changing nature of the Constitution’s interpretation regarding
…show more content…
One of the main functions of state governments is to establish a sense of political efficacy and duty among its inhabitants. If states did not exist, citizens would not have the same sense of duty instilled within them, because federal governments are often perceived as impersonal entities. Similar to state governments, Alexis de Tocqueville describes the importance of the decentralized institution of localities by stating, “Of all forms of liberty, that of the local community, which is so hard to establish, is the most prone to the encroachments of authority.” Assuming Tocqueville is correct, the abolition of states would result in an infringement of the citizens’ “spirit of liberty” all the way to a local level. While the states exist to enhance the civic virtue of citizens and offer an institution to bring concerns to, it also exists to protect the civic liberty among its inhabitants. Tocqueville writes, “Without local institutions a nation may give itself a free government, but it has not got the spirit of liberty.” Although he is referencing townships and local governments, the same is true for states. Civic liberty and political involvement is the backbone of the American spirit and our democracy as a whole. Although individuals may not succeed to the same degree as a federal or state level of government would, it is necessary …show more content…
The elimination of states would abolish such a relationship between citizens and all levels of government. Included within a states ability to connect citizens to level of government perceived as distant, they also protect their citizens from an overpowering federal government. In Enduring Features of Federalism, Derthick suggests that the removal of states would dissolve the level of government most responsible for initiating contact with federal institutions through “talking back.” She writes, “This appeal to the states to talk back is not a call to defiance, but a call to engage federal officials in a policy dialogue…” However, the function of states as protectors of citizens rights through talking back has continually faced challenges. Ultimately, Supreme Court decisions have reshaped the extent to which states may talk back on certain issues. In cases such as Obergefell v. Hodges, federal law required all states to acknowledge same-sex marriage. States in opposition of the federal law were incapable of talking back due to the constitutional right of federal law to supersede state law (Jillson 79). Although arguments over power continue between state and federal levels, it is necessary to have a state present to connect individuals to higher government and
One of the main functions of state governments is to establish a sense of political efficacy and duty among its inhabitants. If states did not exist, citizens would not have the same sense of duty instilled within them, because federal governments are often perceived as impersonal entities. Similar to state governments, Alexis de Tocqueville describes the importance of the decentralized institution of localities by stating, “Of all forms of liberty, that of the local community, which is so hard to establish, is the most prone to the encroachments of authority.” Assuming Tocqueville is correct, the abolition of states would result in an infringement of the citizens’ “spirit of liberty” all the way to a local level. While the states exist to enhance the civic virtue of citizens and offer an institution to bring concerns to, it also exists to protect the civic liberty among its inhabitants. Tocqueville writes, “Without local institutions a nation may give itself a free government, but it has not got the spirit of liberty.” Although he is referencing townships and local governments, the same is true for states. Civic liberty and political involvement is the backbone of the American spirit and our democracy as a whole. Although individuals may not succeed to the same degree as a federal or state level of government would, it is necessary …show more content…
The elimination of states would abolish such a relationship between citizens and all levels of government. Included within a states ability to connect citizens to level of government perceived as distant, they also protect their citizens from an overpowering federal government. In Enduring Features of Federalism, Derthick suggests that the removal of states would dissolve the level of government most responsible for initiating contact with federal institutions through “talking back.” She writes, “This appeal to the states to talk back is not a call to defiance, but a call to engage federal officials in a policy dialogue…” However, the function of states as protectors of citizens rights through talking back has continually faced challenges. Ultimately, Supreme Court decisions have reshaped the extent to which states may talk back on certain issues. In cases such as Obergefell v. Hodges, federal law required all states to acknowledge same-sex marriage. States in opposition of the federal law were incapable of talking back due to the constitutional right of federal law to supersede state law (Jillson 79). Although arguments over power continue between state and federal levels, it is necessary to have a state present to connect individuals to higher government and