Dear Editor,
When the founders of this nation wanted to create a practical and flexible form of government capable of enduring for centuries, they settled upon the idea of a system of shared sovereignty between two levels of government – one national and one subnational (federal and state) – occupying the same region. This idea came to become what we know as federalism, which is the system that we continue to operate under today.
The system of federalism has definitely had a hand in some of the most contentious American events – most notably the Civil War. Prior to April 12, 1861, the day on which Captain George S. James ordered his battery to fire a 10-inch mortar shell over the harbor and into Fort Sumter, marking the beginning of the war, Alexander H. Stephens, the Confederate vice president, made clear in his “cornerstone speech” that the cornerstone of the Confederacy was not simply chattel slavery but also rested on the assumed racial and ethnic superiority of the ruling class and the absolute inferiority and subordination of blacks.
In short, the Confederates sought to uphold the concept of white supremacy through the continuation of the slavery institution. So when Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 U.S presidential election, seven southern states responded by seceding from the United States and forming the Confederacy. They argued that the federal government had no right trampling upon their sovereignty; that they, in their sovereignty, had a right to continue the barbaric atrocities they were committing against African slaves because, under the system of federalism, they were allowed to do whatever they wanted to do without the national government intervening.
Fast-forward 163 years later, and we are witnessing these states slowly regaining that power at the generous hand of the United States Supreme Court. In Shelby v. Holder (2013) SCOTUS essentially overturned the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Nine years later, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), SCOTUS decided it would trample upon the rights of women when it overruled Roe v. Wade. Each decision has led to several GOP-led state legislatures to enact legislation making it harder for some people to exercise their right to vote and also absolving women of bodily autonomy.
In May, the Louisiana House approved a bill that would make two medications commonly used to induce abortion illegal under Louisiana’s controlled substance laws. Anyone caught in possession of any of those two medications without valid prescriptions could be punished by fines, jail time or both. Texas’ abortion laws are so restrictive that women living in the state must be on the brink of death before receiving medical assistance – in the case of Yeniifer Alvarez-Estrada Glick of Luling, Tx., death occurred. Here in Georgia, the state has a budget of around 16 Billion this fiscal year, not much of which, if any, has been allocated to the expansion of healthcare.
The point I am making is that in order to effectuate change we cannot consistently allow ourselves to be distracted by national elections. In the end, under the system of federalism, states will continue to operate within the scope of their own sovereignty, without the national government interfering. The only way we are going to achieve healthcare expansion, thwart the subtle tactics used to escape the obvious appearance of racial gerrymandering, or ensure a Georgia woman is able to reserve the right to do what she wants with her body – in terms of abortion – is to change the makeup of the state legislature. Many of the laws passed by the conservative-minded legislators who have a stronghold on the state House & Senate are not passed with concern for how the most distressed Georgians will be affected. The system of federalism is not dying out any time soon. That is why voters must vote in state elections with the same fervor usually reserved for national elections.
Lawrence Anthony Brannen
Founder & President of The Justice-Impacted Reformation Society Inc
