Question

Madison argued for the proposed constitution: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Q.        Is that still true today? What are some things (policy areas) that the federal government is involved in/controls today that might contradict Madison’s statement?

Answer 1

Madison’s argument as now limited relevance as there is a supremacy clause in the US constitution. It means that wherever there is a conflict between the federal and state laws, then federal laws will supersede and it will be considered as the supreme law of the land. Hence, the US constitution has given the power to the Federal government to exercise its control if the federal government wants to intervene. It can be done, by its judiciary function by use of common laws in the Supreme Court. Or, the president can also take the executive order to implement a policy, in compliance to the US constitution. So, there is a distribution of power between the federal government and the states, but federal government of today, can find ways to supersede the decisions taken up by the states.
Federal government controls military development & maintenance, foreign relations and international trade. So, any state, cannot take decision on its own to enter into the trade agreement with countries other than the states of the USA. It is in contradiction to the Madison’s argument that talks about the limited power given to the federal government. Besides, the homeland securities is another federal area of work that wield strong control by the Federal government.