“We are a nation of laws, not of men,” John Adams once said. Adams was referring to the Rule of Law principle. Some argue that the Rule of Law principle retards progress by throwing legal wrenches into the machinery of needed social change. Indeed, Karl Marx saw the Rule of Law as a tool used by oppressors to confound social revolution. The Founders had quite a different view. For them, a republic is more than representative democracy. It is a nation ruled by law. It is as important, perhaps more important that the proper constitutional processes and jurisdictions be followed than the policies or programs passed are good, wise, just, etc. When the rule of law is followed, even if it sometimes prevents policies that we may think are good and helpful, the long-term effect is to prevent lawlessness and tyranny.
But the Founders also originated, to a great extent, a system we call Federalism. Until their time, governments were organized as unitary systems, in which sovereign authority rests with the central government, or confederations, in which sovereignty authority rests with sub-national governments. Scholars debate whether Federalism was introduced due to compromise for the sake of political expedience. Others argue that the Founders were very intentional about it, deliberately trying to separate powers vertically (as well as horizontally) and preserve the essential independence of states which they had enjoyed for a hundred years as colonies.
- But what are the benefits of Federalism?
- What are the disadvantages?
- How has Federalism changed (declined) over time, and why?
Provide three peer-reviewed articles with in-text citations.
