Federalism & Anti-Federalism

From the very beginning of our national government two philosophies have been in conflict. One the one side is federalism. Federalism advocates a strong central government for the whole Nation. Anti-federalism advocates a weak central government in favor of “states’ rights.” Are there certain issues which demand a single standard across all states, or is each state free to establish their own standards?

Imagine a situation where each of the fifty states establishes its own standards for automobile safety? An automobile purchased in Pennsylvania may be illegal to drive in Ohio or New Jersey. We live in a highly mobile society having different standards in each state would be unacceptable. Therefore, we have national standards for automobile safety.

Historically, there were “free states” and “slave states.” Some states prohibited individuals from owning slaves and some permitted the owning of slaves. Part, and only part, of what led to the Civil War/the War of Northern Aggression/the War Between the States was the issue of federalism versus anti-federalism. Shall slavery be prohibited nationally, or shall it be up to each state to make the decision?

Today we see this conflict between federalism and anti-federalism being played out on several fronts. Shall transgender people be required to use the restroom according to the gender on their birth certificate, or may a transgender people use the restroom of sexual identity? What happens when a transgender person lives in a state which permits the individual to make the choice of which restroom to use then is traveling across country into a state which does permit restroom choice?   Shall each state set its own standards for accommodating students with special needs, or should there be a basic national standard? What happens when a student moves from New York to Texas where the two states have widely divergent standards?

We have seen the conflict between federalism and anti-federalism play out in many church structures. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is a case in point. In 1983 the United Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Presbyterian Church in the United States merged to form the PC (U.S.A.) The UPCUSA tended toward a more federalist church government. One could move from one presbytery (regional governing body) to another and be confident that the rules and procedures were basically the same. The Book of Order (the operational portion of the church constitution) detailed common nomenclature in the structure and procedures. In the PCUS, which tended more toward an anti-federalist church government concerning the relationship of the presbyteries and the more inclusive governing bodies of the synods and the General Assembly. The Book of Church Order provided for more latitude from presbytery to presbytery in procedures and processes.

With the 1983 merger two styles were not fully integrated. The Book of Order, following the merger, more closely followed the federalist model. The across the Nation the federalist and anti-federalist divide in society was becoming wider and wider. This divide was evidenced in the rewrite of the Book of Order, which took effect in 2011. Many of the “regulative” portions of the Book of Order were eliminated, giving more freedom to the presbyteries to design their own structures. No longer could one depend on presbyteries being similar in nomenclature and procedures. Anti-federalism was winning over federalism.

As the General Assembly (the national governing body) made controversial decisions allowing ordination and marriage of gay and lesbian people, the resistance to the federalist model grew. Additionally, the property trust clause in the Book of Order, which maintains that if a congregations disaffiliates from the PC (USA) the property reverts to the presbytery as a trustee for the denomination. Congregations insist the property is theirs. The property issue usually ends up in the civil courts. Some courts rule in favor of the denomination and some in favor of the congregation. It all depends on whether the philosophy of the court tends toward federalism or anti-federalism.

In civil government and ecclesiastical government we are in a pitched battle e between federalism and anti-federalism. The momentum presently seems to be on the side of the anti-federalist. In fact, one adviser to the President is so anti-federalist that his stated goal in the destruction of central government regulations over all aspects of life. Either one side will win out or some compromise between the two poles will have to be developed. Ideologues will fight it out. Moderates will seek compromise.