Restoring Federalism: The States House Proposal
Context:
The U.S. federal government has grown significantly over the years, and in the process, the original balance of power envisioned by the Founders has shifted. States’ rights have been diminished due to the increasing influence of federal agencies and unelected experts who draft policies without direct accountability to the people or their elected representatives. The legislative branch is often deadlocked by partisanship, leaving the President to overreach by using executive orders to bypass Congress. This federal overreach, combined with members of Congress often being more influenced by lobbyists than by their own constituents, has led to laws and regulations that are increasingly unpopular among the states.
Proposal:
To address these issues, I propose creating a third legislative body, which we will call the States House, to restore the balance of power between federal and state governments. This new house would represent the collective interests of the states and provide a vital check on federal overreach, ensuring that laws and regulations better reflect the needs and desires of the individual states. The structure and powers of the States House would help reestablish state sovereignty and provide more direct accountability in the lawmaking process.
Structure of the States House:
1. Representation:
• State-appointed Representatives: Each state governor will nominate one person to represent the interests of their state in the States House. This nominee must be confirmed by the state legislature to ensure broad support from that state’s elected officials.
• Term of Service: Once appointed, the representative serves until they are either recalled by the governor or voted out by the state legislature. This ensures that states have the flexibility to choose who best represents their interests.
• Supreme Court Representative: The U.S. Supreme Court will elect one representative to join the States House. This representative will preside over the body and cast tie-breaking votes when necessary.
2. Powers of the States House:
• Legislative Review: Any bill that has been ratified by the other two houses (the Senate and House of Representatives) before being sent to the President for signature can be vetoed by the States House if 2/3 of its members vote in favor of the veto. This gives states the power to block federal legislation that they believe infringes on state sovereignty or is not in their best interest.
• Bill Debate and Revision: By a majority vote, members of the States House can bring any existing piece of federal legislation to the floor for debate. Following debate, the bill can be voted on for elimination or revision. If revisions are made, they must then be approved by the Senate and House of Representatives. This process allows states to correct or repeal unpopular or harmful laws that Congress may have passed.
• Regulatory Oversight: Any regulation created by executive branch agencies, except for executive orders, can be overturned by a simple majority vote of the States House. This provides a critical check on the administrative state, which currently operates with very little oversight from elected representatives.
• Executive Order Veto: The States House can veto any executive order issued by the President with a 2/3 majority vote. This helps prevent the President from using executive orders to bypass Congress and impose policies that may not be supported by the states.
Benefits of the Proposal:
1. Restores State Sovereignty:
• The States House would provide states with a formal role in the federal legislative process, ensuring that laws and regulations better reflect the needs and desires of the individual states. This would reestablish the balance between federal and state power that has been eroded over time.
2. Increases Accountability:
• Unlike unelected federal bureaucrats or lifetime appointees, the representatives in the States House would be accountable to the governors and state legislatures that appoint them. This means that they are more directly accountable to the people of their respective states, ensuring that their actions reflect the interests of those they represent.
3. Reduces Federal Overreach:
• By giving states the power to veto or revise federal laws and regulations, the States House would serve as a powerful check on federal overreach. States would be able to push back against policies imposed by unelected federal agencies and ensure that any new legislation or regulations respect the rights of the states.
4. Provides a Check on Executive Power:
• The President’s use of executive orders has increased significantly in recent years, often as a way to bypass a gridlocked Congress. The States House would help curb this trend by giving states the power to veto executive orders, ensuring that the President cannot unilaterally impose policies that may not be supported by the states.
5. Reduces Lobbyist Influence:
• With a legislative body focused solely on state interests, lobbyists and special interests would have less influence in the federal legislative process. Representatives in the States House would be accountable to state governments, not national-level donors or interest groups, leading to laws that better reflect the priorities of the people.
6. Encourages Bipartisanship and Cooperation:
• The States House would encourage cooperation between the federal government and the states. It provides a platform for states to voice their concerns and propose solutions, fostering a more collaborative approach to governance. This could help reduce the partisan gridlock that often characterizes federal lawmaking.
Addressing Criticisms:
1. Criticism: This proposal could slow down the legislative process and make it harder to pass laws.
• Response: While the States House would add an additional layer of review, this is necessary to ensure that federal laws respect state sovereignty and reflect the will of the people. The goal is not to prevent laws from being passed but to ensure that the laws and regulations that are enacted are well-considered and balanced.
2. Criticism: It could undermine the authority of Congress and the President.
• Response: The States House would not replace the authority of Congress or the President, but rather serve as an additional check on their power. This is in line with the Founders’ vision of a balanced system of government where no single entity holds too much power.
3. Criticism: The Supreme Court’s involvement could politicize the judiciary.
• Response: The Supreme Court’s role in the States House is limited to electing a single representative who presides over the body and casts tie-breaking votes. This is a minor role that would not compromise the Court’s independence or politicize its function.
Conclusion:
The creation of a States House would restore the balance of power between the federal government and the states, providing states with a formal role in the federal legislative process and ensuring that laws and regulations respect state sovereignty. This proposal would reduce federal overreach, increase accountability, curb executive power, and diminish the influence of lobbyists, leading to a more fair and balanced system of governance that reflects the diverse interests of the nation.
By empowering states to veto or revise federal laws, overturn regulations, and veto executive orders, the States House would reestablish the balance of power that has been lost over time, restoring the system of checks and balances that the Founders intended.
This policy, “Restoring Federalism: The States House Proposal,” offers a forward-thinking solution to the growing divide between states and the federal government and provides a framework for a more accountable and representative government.