Monitoring American Federalism: The History of State Legislative Resistance, by Christian G. Fritz

Abstract

The U.S. Constitution outlined a federal system of government but it neither drew a clear boundary between state and federal powers nor indicated clearly how disputes over that boundary would be authoritatively resolved. As a result, episodes contesting those two areas have been regular and central features of American political development since its founding. State governments have used various means to push back against perceived federal encroachments on their powers, and various entities have asserted the right to offer authoritative interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. In Monitoring American Federalism, Christian G. Fritz reminds readers of a misunderstood—and indeed nearly forgotten—mechanism by which state legislatures added their voices to national debates over constitutional federalism: interposition. During the ratification debates of 1787–1788, Anti-Federalists warned forcefully about the lack of a clear state–federal boundary and the apparent lack of mechanisms to enforce it. To tamp down those fears, the Constitution’s defenders needed to explain how American federalism would work and how states would avoid consolidation over time into a single national government. Fritz notes that, although the term interposition was not initially used by Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, eight of The Federalist essays they authored contain the details of its theory and practice. If the federal government attempted to exercise powers not granted to it by the Constitution, they argued, state officials would be sure to notice and would sound the alarm and communicate with other state governments and their representatives in Congress to spread awareness of the encroachment and to encourage them to enact countermeasures such as repealing the offending laws or even sponsoring amendments to add clarifying text to the Constitution.