Across the United States, public officials seek relief from burdensome regulations imposed on them by the federal government. In the following article, Michael Leavitt, governor of the state of Utah, offers a plan for retaining a strong federal government, but one that focuses its supremacy on only a few issues, and leaves the states the potential to check the growth of the government's power.




It is my honor to serve as the governor of Utah, a proud and prosperous state which has just celebrated its state centennial. Governors, however, are not elected just to govern states. We have an historic role to play as stewards, entrusted by the founders of our country to be of sufficient voice to balance the interests of local government against the nation's federal or national government.

Over the past 50 years, the federal government in Washington -- the president, Supreme Court, and Congress -- whether guided by Democratic or Republican Parties -- has so expanded its ability to influence local government that the American system of three- tier government today is in total disarray.

Volumes have already been written about why this has happened. There is no simple explanation and plenty of blame to go around. But the fact remains, I strongly believe, that the system of checks and balances, so carefully constructed by the Founding Fathers, needs rebalancing.

In the context of history, the debate over American federalism is serious and important. I would like to state clearly three things in which I believe. First, without a strong federal government, the United States of America would fail. We are and must remain "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Second, it is my view that the strength of our federal government is founded on its supremacy. Lastly, I believe our nation's government has been weakened by a well- meaning expansion beyond its purpose and logical application.

The Need for a Strong, but Limited, National Government

Following their victory in the Revolutionary War, the colonies became independent states, loosely joined together under a document called the Articles of Confederation. And, while their hopes and aspirations were high, frankly, it was a mess. The national government was just too weak. The country staggered under a $60 million war debt. With no national tax system, there was no means of repayment. Three different states were claiming part of Vermont. There was no national court system to resolve disputes. Trade barriers and a fragmented monetary system strangled the economy. To foreign powers, this was no nation, just a group of rebellious arbiters not to be taken seriously. Something had to be done.

In May 1787, a group of state legislators and citizens gathered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for a constitutional convention, to craft some type of workable system. With George Washington as chairman, 55 delegates met for four months behind closed doors, drafting what would become the U.S. Constitution.

From that meeting, two major issues emerged: first, balancing the interests of both big states and small states. That was resolved by the "Great Compromise," which created two houses of Congress, one apportioned by population, the other by state.

The second issue was more complex, but absolutely fundamental to the very existence of the republic. What would be the relationship between the states and the national government? Would this new government be dominated by states or would a centralized national government be superior, dictating to the states?

Most of the delegates knew the failings of a government dominated by the states. They had seen firsthand what a misfire the Articles of Confederation had been. But having just won their freedom in the not-so-distant past, the delegates were wary of turning the regulation of their lives, fortunes and families over to a centralized national government.

This state-vs.-national issue almost brought the gathering to the brink of collapse. But at the last moment, a brilliant solution was produced. The delegates used the same common-sense approach my mother taught me when I was a child.

Mother's Rules

I grew up in a family of six boys. It was not unusual for a couple of us to fight over the last piece of dessert. So, mother would say, "Mike, you cut the pie and Dan (my brother), you choose first." I would cut the pie with scalpel-like precision, knowing full well that if either of the pieces was bigger, my brother would take it. We called that method "mother's rules." It was elegant in its simplicity, brutally fair and absolutely effective.

The delegates of the constitutional convention applied their own version of mother's rules. They created two governments. First, the national government, with a list of explicit, delegated responsibilities -- things like national defense, foreign policy, interstate commerce, and coining of money. In those limited areas, the national government would be supreme. All powers not given to the national government -- the overwhelming majority -- would remain with the states and the people. If either the national or state governments began to encroach on one another, or failed to perform, the Founding Fathers believed the other would immediately react and the "people would be protected." In other words, they expected the careful balance they had created would be self-enforcing.

Although there were a lot of skeptics, their brilliant constitutional craftsmanship has endured more than 200 years. In that time, the United States has prospered. It has survived a civil war, conflicts with foreign powers, and two centuries of dramatic change. I believe, in proper balance, it is the ideal form of government for the information age.

James Madison on Federalism

Some time ago, I was inside the New Jersey governor's residence where I admired a small table. It was obviously an antique and well-crafted. "James Madison made it," said the manager of the house. As I touched the wood, I felt a deep respect for the man Americans call the father of the Constitution. What insights Mr. Madison might offer about the United States today, I thought, if he could visit with me and other state leaders for a few hours. Undoubtedly, he would have a lot of questions for us, the stewards of the Founding Fathers' legacy.



Black-and-white image of James Sharples's 1804 portrait of James Madison. Photo courtesy of Independence National Park, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.




Madison's first question likely would be, "Are the checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial branches working?" In answer, legislators would complain about the executive, and executives about legislators, and we would all grumble about the courts. That would be all the answer Madison would need. The plan is working.


"What about big states and small states?" Madison would say next.

"This is working, too," would be our reply.

Then would come Madison's tough question: "We worked hard to balance the power of states and the national government. What has happened since we left?" A long awkward silence would ensue, and then we would answer, "We have good news and bad news. The good news is we still have both state and national governments. The bad news is you are not going to recognize them."

How would Madison react to the volumes of federal laws prescribing in great detail how every state, city, town, village and hamlet conducts the most uniquely local tasks?

Madison likely would not be at all happy about a federal government grown so large and inefficient. His greatest disappointment, however, would be with state leaders and lawmakers. In response, he might say, "Stand up states! You have given up your place at the constitutional table. You have left the people unprotected, not from tyrants or subversives, but from the natural consequences of unchecked power and political force without resistance."

By this time, state policymakers might all be feeling a bit defensive. In their defense, one might say, "We do stand up. We meet together. We give speeches and write letters to our congressional delegation. We go to Congress and testify, and lobby."

By now, Mr. Madison would be aghast. "What do you mean, 'We lobby?'" he would ask. "Are states now nothing more than lobbyists, special interest groups, supplicants?" he would add. "We did not create a master-servant relationship. States are full constitutional partners in this republic. We left you with tools to ensure your proper place in a balanced system."

Such a conversation with Madison could go on and on. The point is that state leaders have violated the law of political gravity by allowing federal power to be inadequately challenged. Power unchecked is power abused. Political force without competition unavoidably becomes a force uncontrolled.

Along with societal trends, state leaders bear a substantial blame for losing control of the tools the Founding Fathers provided to implement the state role in the federal system. When states did not respond to economic, environmental and human equality concerns, citizens looked to the national government for leadership. War, economic depression, and an industrial age society of top-down management encouraged centralized structures.

Looking At the Future

But today is an entirely new era in American history, when states are fulfilling their responsibilities, when small flexible, networked units -- whether government or business -- are outperforming their centralized, bureaucratic counterparts. States are offering dynamic leadership, fiscal responsibility, and innovative policy solutions in every area of government.

Why, then, in a country as big and diverse as the United States, with as many good leaders as there are in every community, with so many resources and pluralistic values, do state leaders allow themselves to be micromanaged from Washington? Such dispersed power, which makes for effective governing, at the same time makes it difficult to compete with the concentrated power of Washington. This is the challenge local leaders must meet in the ensuing years of rapid economic change in America.

In order to balance the American government as the Founding Fathers so wisely intended, leaders at the state level must ensure that they are heard on issues of vital concern: agriculture, energy, environment, health and commerce, for example. State leaders must use every legal means available to them to make certain their proposals are heard and not lost in the overgrown maze of Washington's federal bureaucracy, the courts, and the forums of public opinion.

State leaders also need to use their constitutional tools to challenge what they believe is bad law or improper regulation. In so doing, the states will not weaken the national government, but hold it to a standard of responsible behavior and accountability. They will restore the healthy competition among America's governing bodies that promotes efficient and responsive government for and by the people.

Issues of Democracy
USIA Electronic Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2, April 1997