Dissenting Viewpoint: It's the Constitution, Not Trump, that Entitles our Loyalty
In the heart of American democracy, a tradition spanning centuries has consistently played a crucial role in safeguarding the Constitution: state-based resistance. This practice, rooted in the principles of popular sovereignty and the separation of powers, has been instrumental in maintaining a delicate balance between the federal government and the states.
The concept of state-based resistance can be traced back to the early days of the nation, with the Federalist Papers discussing the importance of sounding the alarm when the federal government oversteps its constitutional bounds. Throughout American history, states have asserted their rights to oppose federal actions they viewed as unconstitutional or oppressive. This principle was a foundational argument in conflicts leading up to the Civil War, where states resisted federal authority on issues like slavery.
One of the most contentious flashpoints has been the federal government’s use of military force within states to enforce federal laws or quell unrest. The Insurrection Act, originally intended to suppress armed rebellion, has historically been used to address civil unrest, labor strikes, and resistance to desegregation during the Civil Rights Movement. However, such federal actions sometimes prompted state-level resistance and conflict over sovereignty.
Over the 20th century, federal courts increasingly interpreted the Constitution to broadly authorise federal actions, shifting away from the founders' original limits on federal power. This expansive interpretation justified landmark government programs and actions but also fueled debates and resistance among states wary of federal overreach.
Modern instances of state-based resistance are as relevant today as ever. For example, tensions arose during the Trump administration when the federal government, amid escalating protests and criticism, federalized National Guard units and deployed active-duty troops in states like California and Wisconsin without state approval. This bypassed governors’ authority and led to a split in National Guard loyalties and open declarations of illegitimacy regarding federal orders by state governments.
Milwaukee, with its progressive tradition and strong civic networks, resisted Trump’s federal orders militarizing protest responses. The federal government’s attempt to invoke the Insurrection Act in this context highlighted fears of authoritarian overreach and militarized federal intervention perceived by local officials and citizens as unconstitutional.
The judiciary’s evolving role in expanding federal power through constitutional interpretation—sometimes seen as politically influenced—has been criticised as enabling federal overreach. This includes decisions upholding broad government actions such as the Federal Reserve, restrictions on gun ownership, and expansive surveillance laws, which states and critics argue go beyond constitutional limits.
In summary, state-based resistance to perceived federal overreach has historically reflected fundamental tensions in American federalism, manifesting in legal theories like nullification, resistance to federal military intervention, and political opposition to federal policies understood as unconstitutional. Modern instances, including resistance to executive actions and federalized military deployments during protests, continue this tradition, underscoring ongoing debates about the boundaries of federal power and state sovereignty in the United States.
As the Trump administration threatens to jettison foundational principles of the American constitutional order, including the separation of powers, due process, and the rule of law, state-based resistance remains a vital tool in preserving and protecting the Constitution. The checks and balances established by the Constitution involve state officials and the American people, in addition to the courts, ensuring that the nation’s most divisive constitutional issues are not solely left to the Supreme Court to settle, especially without the broad agreement of the American people.
Books delving into American history may discuss instances of state-based resistance as a response to federal overreach, such as the opposition to federal military intervention or unconstitutional policies. News outlets often cover current events featuring state-level opposition to federal actions, as observed during protests and the deployment of troops without state approval. Opinion pieces and policy-and-legislation debates frequently center around the question of federal power limits, highlighting the enduring debate between the federal government and the states.
