“The struggle to maintain the Constitution of the United States is an unending one. The battle is always on, although the fact be little appreciated,” wrote James M. Beck. Beck was a constitutional scholar, and he was concerned with what he considered to be the greatest danger to the Constitution to be the “gradual erosion of its principles…” One of those principles that has been eroded is Federalism. Federalism refers to the division of powers between the federal and state governments. Over time, the federal government has superseded its constitutional bounds and many policy areas that should be the responsibility of the states have now become prerogatives of the federal government.
The late constitutional scholar James McClellan wrote that federalism was “woven into the entire fabric of the Constitution.” Even prior to the crafting of the Constitution states had a prominent role in the American political tradition, which started with the written colonial charters and later state constitutions.
During the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 states not only sent delegates, but questions of representation within the new Congress were settled between large and small states. Originally, the states also had a greater voice because members of the Senate were selected by state legislatures. The Constitution also provided an avenue for the states to amend the Constitution, and most people forget that the Electoral College is a product of federalism.
Under the Constitution “real or political sovereignty rested, of course, not with the Federal or State governments, but with the “people.” The Federalist argued that “ultimate authority resides in the people alone.” Nevertheless, power and sovereignty in the Constitution was divided between the federal and state governments.
“American political system, first of all, is a system of limited, delegated powers, entrusted to political officers and representatives and leaders for certain well-defined public purposes,” wrote Russell Kirk.
In reassuring that the true intent of the Constitution was to limit power, James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which remain in the state governments, are numerous and indefinite.”
Madison’s argument was further illustrated within the Constitution through the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 lists the enumerated powers of Congress. As an example, Congress can regulate commerce and declare war, while states cannot regulate interstate commerce or declare war.
During the 20th century a substantial constitutional change started to take place with the Progressive movement. Progressives argued that the Constitution was a “living” document, which changes with the times. Progressives argued that the Constitution based on limited government would no longer work in a modern, urbanized, industrial society.
Whether it was President Theodore Roosevelt or President Woodrow Wilson, progressive presidential administrations increasingly looked to expand not only the executive power, but also the regulatory power of the federal government. The result was the start of the administrative state or what is commonly referred to as the bureaucracy.
John S. Baker argues that the “administrative state represents the very consolidation of power opposed by all of the founders — Federalist as well as Anti-Federalist.”
President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal provided a shot of adrenaline to the administrative state. The New Deal had significant constitutional implications as the Supreme Court would enable the federal government to expand its powers through broad interpretations of the Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and General Welfare clauses of the Constitution. With this expansion, federalism was also eroded.
The result is the leviathan that the federal government has become today. States have become administrative districts of the federal government and dependent upon federal funds. In Fiscal Year 2023, Iowa received $11.8 billion in federal funds and is projected to be the same in Fiscal Year 2026.
Gov. Kim Reynolds has been trying to limit Iowa’s reliance on federal funds. As a result of President Donald Trump’s DOGE efforts, Gov. Reynolds is advocating that the United States Department of Education allow states greater flexibility in using federal dollars by using block grants. Gov. Reynolds is correct that returning education back to the states is not only better policy, but it is the constitutional approach.
Legislators in Iowa, just as in other states, are often limited in how they can legislate because of federal funds and the “guidelines” that accompany those funds. The expansion of the federal government is also an economic threat to the states.
Already the national debt surpasses $37 trillion and what would happen if Congress were forced to cut spending? Iowa depends on federal matching funds for programs such as Medicaid, which consumes close to $2 billion of the proposed $9.4 billion Fiscal Year 2026 budget.
This is why legislators must prepare for the potential of federal funds being reduced. It would be better now for policymakers in Iowa to limit spending before any austerity is forced upon them by Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam’s wallet will eventually run out. It is imperative that legislators not only have a clear inventory of federal funds but also understand and make transparent the many guidelines and rules that are handed down by federal bureaucracies.
Policymakers in Iowa should also consider reforms such as Utah’s “Financial Ready Utah” plan, which requires the state to have an emergency plan in case the federal government cuts back on federal funds.
Beck reminds us that the Founders not only formed a government of “strictly limited powers,” but “they did not intend to create a new nation that would submerge the states.” Restoring constitutional federalism will lead to better policy outcomes, but more importantly it will restore constitutional government.
This article was originally published at www.thecentersquare.com
