How can conflict between the state and federal governments be resolved in the future?

Answer 1

To a certain extent the conflict is healthy. The authority of the levels of government is best established by the Constitution, which is generally interpreted by the Supreme Court.

I am among those who believe the federal government has too much authority, and I would disengage the feds from certain of their functions and defer to state governments for those functions, or take them even lower to municipal levels.

Generally that government is best which governs least.

Answer 2

Warren D is correct that such conflict is healthy. That was the way the federal constitution was crafted.

It is in great part the tension between the states and the federal gov't which helps to maintain the liberties we so often associate with american life. Each helps to serve as a check against the uncontrolled expansion of the other. Most of all, the existence of the states helps to guarantee that, to the greatest extent possible, legislative control remains local, where democracy can be most effective.

A good example is the "REAL ID Act", a federal law passed by George Bush which attempts to create a de facto national identity card. It would have suceeded completely had it not been for the existence of the state legislatures, many of which immediately passed laws refusing to participate in the federal program. Local control of democracy preserves rights.

On the other side of the same coin, the existence of the federal government allows us to act as one nation when facing foreign threats or issues which concern more than one state. Imagine how life would be if the american states had no single currency, for example!

It is the tension between these 2 very legitimate aims that characterizes and assists in the continuing struggle to maintain an effective democracy.

Answer 3

Abiding by the Constitution might help.

Answer 4

1865 - feds won