Safeguarding Our Federalism: Lessons for the States from the Supreme Court

More than 15 years ago, prominent constitutional scholar unequivocally declared: Federalism is dead and the Supreme Court has made its contributions to its demise.' On the political front, however, efforts were underway to change the federal-state relationship. President Nixon advocated a federalism in which power, funds and responsibility will flow from Washington to the states and to the people.2 The Sagebrush Rebellion, of relatively recent origin, was born of federalism as means of getting the government off the backs of the people,3 to use Reagan campaign phrase. In his 1981 inaugural address, President Reagan reiterated the call for new federalism: It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people. .. While federalism means different things to different people, in perhaps its most objective sense, federalism can be thought of as means of allocating power between central government and state governments. James Madison, in The Federalist, No. 39, concluded that: