The U.S. Constitution is the oldest constitution still in operation in the world, but it didn't happen easily.  With the memory of the revolution still firmly in mind, the people of the various states were hesitant to create a strong central government in fear of it becoming simply a replacement of the monarchy they had recently overthrown.  This memory helped create the system of dual sovereignty between the states and the federal government that exists today.  The federal government was allocated only the powers it needed to operate the group of states as a nation, most of which are only needed in times of trouble.  These include the authority to build a military, declare war, and control commerce for all the states.

The states and the citizens were left with the remainder of the powers.  These powers were those more essential during peaceful times when there was no national emergency.  As a result, most of the citizens felt more loyalty to the state governments than to the federal government during normal times.  But citizens were still concerned a more powerful federal government would tend to overreach its authority and expand its powers.

In the Federalist Paper 46, Madison wrote:

> The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. 

This statement sums up the relationship between the federal government, state governments and the people.  The federal and state governments are simply "agents and trustees" that work for the people.  Being designed for different purposes, neither government is subordinate to the other but they are subordinate to the will of the people.

With our current state of federal government overreach beyond its originally enumerated powers, it's easy to think none of this is still relevant today.  However, this is actually the basis for many of our current news stories.  From this dual sovereignty and Federalist Paper 46 came a doctrine known as anti-commandeering.  The anti-commandeering doctrine states the Federal government may not force its will on state governments and has been upheld by Supreme Courts since 1842.  In the case of Murphy v. NCAA (2018), Justice Samuel Alito wrote:

> The anticommandeering doctrine may sound arcane, but it is simply the expression of a fundamental structural decision incorporated into the Constitution, i.e., the decision to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States … Conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States. The anticommandeering doctrine simply represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority.

The various Supreme Court cases since 1842 have not only maintained the Federal government may not force states to comply with Federal law but also that the Federal government may not force states to assist in the enforcement of Federal law.  If the Federal government wants to enforce a Federal law in any particular state, they can, but if the state chooses it may withhold assistance from state and local law enforcement.


As a result, no where in the Constitution does it imply the states are subjects of the federal government and we have our dual sovereignty system of government.  In the Federalist Paper 46, James Madison talked about the potential of overreach by the federal government and potential remedies by the states.  These remedies include the states not supporting the federal government and as a last resort the taking up of arms against the federal government.  With the people of any particular state being more loyal to the state government, Madison knew the states would always win this confrontation.

Under this system of dual sovereignty, we as citizens are subject to the laws of both the state and the Federal government.  At the same time, each individual state may take action not to support or obey Federal law.  This can be seen in action as

- individual states legalizing the use of marijuana
- sanctuary states for illegal immigrants
- Second Amendment Sanctuary states
- Court cases by states against the forced implementation of Obamacare

In 2017, Jeff Sessions and the Trump Administration attempted to withhold Federal funding to states and cities to force them to comply with Federal immigration law.  The attempt failed because anti-commandeering prohibited the Federal government from coercing states to comply with its wishes since the original establishment of the funding did not have a requirement of the states to comply with immigration law.

There are methods for the Federal government to push it's will on the states.  In 1974, President Nixon signed into law the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act which reduced speed limits across the country to 55 mph.  Within the law was a requirement for the Federal government to withhold funding for highway construction unless the national speed limit was recognized by the state.  In this case, complying with the Federal law was made a requirement to obtain federal funding for highway construction projects.  

Anti-commandeering resulted from the Congress not being given the power to order the states around.  So, as citizens, we are still subject to Federal laws but the states are not.  Several states have passed laws prohibiting sanctuary city policies for illegal immigrants.  In this case, the state governments are confirming their willingness to comply with Federal immigration laws.  Under our system of dual sovereignty, the anti-commandeering doctrine is simply a weapon in the arsenal of states to fight overreach by the Federal government.  It will be interesting to watch this play out if the Democrats win their attempt to try to implement socialism from the Federal government down to the states.