For WA, the advantages of federalism are clear

In 1787, our fledgling nation was rocked when more than 4,000 domestic insurgents — many of them veterans of the American Revolution — rose up during Shays’ Rebellion in an attempt to overthrow the commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Although the insurgency was eventually fought off with a privately raised militia, the Union’s central government failed spectacularly when it could not muster a response.

While the event highlighted the need for a stronger federal government, a palpable fear of monarchical power still pervaded the country. For Founding Fathers and Federalists like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the role of the federal government under the new Constitution was to be “exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce[.]”

In creating a federalist republic, those founders understood that “[t]he federal and State governments are … constituted with different powers and designed for different purposes.” Unlike the limited federal government, “[t]he powers reserved to the several States … extend to all the objects which … concern the lives, liberties, and prosperities of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.”

This division makes common sense in light of the ability of local citizens to exert considerably higher influence on state politicians, governments and issues. It also protects against the shifting ideological tides linked to federal elections, where individual rights can be massively affected by interests from other states and regions.

Alexander Hamilton was even strongly opposed to a federal bills of rights that included domestic protections for the press, religion or other freedoms. This was not because he did not believe in every citizens’ inherent right to liberty in the form of privacy, equality or self-determination. Rather, Hamilton believed there was no reason to “declare that things shall not be done which there is no power [of the federal government] to do.”

It was simply assumed that neither a president nor Congress would interfere with such critical rights like the freedom of expression or of the press. Not too long after speaking those words, however, it became apparent that now-expanded central government’s powers needed to be expressly limited, and the Bill of Rights was passed in 1789.

For Washington state, the advantages of federalism are readily apparent. We are a state that prides itself as a national leader in personal liberty, environmental responsibility and progressive medical treatment. From granting women suffrage more than 50 years before the 19^th Amendment to passing the first law protecting same-sex marriage in 2012, Washington has long led the nation on important issues integral to self-determination.

Based on that history, we should not want to cede — to the current federal administration or any other — one bit of our state’s power to continue preserving equality of marriage, decriminalization of cannabis, access to health care and self-defense for vulnerable minority communities.

As President Abraham Lincoln recognized, improper power in anyone’s hands is still improper: “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.” Simply because we could support one president’s view of appropriate and equitable use of power, does not mean that we would want to place that same power in the hands of the next leader — neither of whom is beholden to Washington’s citizens or their needs.

Instead, we should remember the value of federalism and endeavor to place more power and corresponding accountability on our local government and leaders in Washington state.