Federalist No. 23 uses the experience of the Articles of Confederation – specifically the experience related to the arrangement whereby the central government could request men and arms for the defense of the nation but did not have the power to enforce those requests on the citizens of the states – to argue that a stronger central government than that provided by the Articles of Confederation was necessary. That experience should prove the necessity of granting sufficient authority to enforce the edicts of the government relating to those tasks which have been delegated to each level of government.
The tasks listed as belonging properly to the central government are "the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries." In other words
- national defense
- public peace
- interstate commerce
- international relations
The principle of having powers sufficient to the duties allotted to each government is illustrated by the following:
Shall the Union be constituted the guardian of the common safety? Are fleets and armies and revenues necessary to this purpose? The government of the Union must be empowered to pass all laws, and to make all regulations which have relation to them. The same must be the case in respect to commerce, and to every other matter to which its jurisdiction is permitted to extend. Is the administration of justice between the citizens of the same State the proper department of the local governments? These must possess all the authorities which are connected with this object, and with every other that may be allotted to their particular cognizance and direction.
Where the federal government enacts laws that are the province of the state governments, the state governments become unable to perform their proper functions in society. That is a problem that has been growing in our nation for decades. As citizens we must come to a consensus again of what the role of the Federal government is and then insist that our representatives at the federal level do not overstep those bounds. We need to allow that the citizens of other states may make choices that we do not agree with, but so long as those choices are not the responsibility of the Federal Government we should not attempt to use the federal powers to force the views of one state on another. The same principle holds true of using state governments to unduly enforce the desires of one county or city on another in those areas that are the proper responsibility of local governments.
Leave a Reply