Reply #113: I think this is the crux of the issue [View All]

[ma4t]

"As I understand it, "Federalism" is simply the sharing of power between a central government and consituent state governments."

Here is the heart of the philosophical dispute here. (One which I've read with interest.) I think that pmbryant has a misunderstanding of the meaning of federalism, at least the context or our nation. The federal system was not intended to set up a system where the state governments were constituent parts of the central government. Just the opposite was true. The central government was a creature of the several states. That is the whole point, the states each agreed to surrender a portion of their sovereign power and authority to a central government but retained the bulk of it to themselves. That is why, under the original constitution, senators were elected by the individual state legislatures and presidential electors are to this very day chosen in the manner decided by each state's legislature. Surprising but true: New York, Idaho or any other state legislature could decide tomorrow to directly elect the presidential electors and not allow the people in that state to vote and it would be perfectly constitutional.

None of this means that pmbryant's arguments are wrong on philosophical grounds; however, it doesn't mean they are right either. That being said, understanding the historical context of the establishment of the Constitution may help in understanding why things were set up the way they were.