Many libertarians say that state governments are buffers against tyranny of the national government, and I don't disagree; however, I contend that national governments are bulwarks against tyrannies of state governments.
The
record of the Constitutional Convention bears this out. This concept was a
recurring theme throughout the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The Federalist thought was that a strong national government, to be TRULY strong, HAD to have the universal negative over state's laws. Without it, the nation could never succeed long-term. The Articles of Confederation provided for no such strong central government:
No sooner were the State Govts. formed than their jealousy & ambition began to display themselves. Each endeavoured to cut a slice from the common loaf, to add to its own morsel, till at length the confederation became frittered down to the impotent condition in which it now stands. Review the progress of the articles of Confederation thro' Congress & compare the first & last draught of it. To correct its vices is the business of this convention. One of its vices is the want of an effectual controul in the whole over its parts. What danger is there that the whole will unnecessarily sacrifice a part? But reverse the case, and leave the whole at the mercy of each part, and will not the general interest be continually sacrificed to local interests? (James Wilson, Pennsylvania)
We see this most clearly with the Arizona controversy. Arizona has passed a law that is not on the books of other states. Because of that discrepancy, there could be room for an unfair advantage in those states or in Arizona. By passing this law, without respect of the laws of California, New Maxico, and Texas, does not the Arizona legislature form an environment where the governments of those states will have to deal with an increase in the illegal immigration that Arizona seeks to address? The universal negative was seen as a way for the Federal Government to make sure that all of the states were playing by the same general set of rules, and that if a state passed a law in contravention of those rules, it could be negated by an act of the national legislature or the national judiciary. Immigration reform is a political hot-potato, and neither party is going to touch it with a 10-foot pole during an election year. But the point is that by circumventing Federal authiority on the issue, Arizona has put in place the environment for negative effect on the neighboring states. This is one of the stated reasons for inserting the universal negative (supremacy) clause into the Constitution.
In fact, many of the delegates to the 1887 Constitutional Convention felt that there was far more danger from the states towards the general government than there was from the general government towards the states. The reasoning is fairly straightforward: the lower house would be elected by the people of the states, not the general government, so they would be more likely to look out for the interests of the individual states. Likewise, the Senate was to be chosen by the respective state legislatures, and would also look out for the interests of the individual states. But who would look out for the general government? The Founders saw intrigues and animosity on the part of the state governments towards the general government as a great threat. All it would take is for one state government to thumb its nose at the general government and the rest would follow suit, inevitably leading to the fall of the general government. Indeed, we are seeing this very premonition come to truth as several other states are considering laws similar to the Arizona law.
The great expansion of the general government is due to the dissolution of the isolation of representatives and Senators. By that, I mean that Senators and representatives clearly no longer have only their individual state's or district's interests at heart when the take a position or cast a vote. The uber-corrupting influence of money and power has seen to that.
