Putting Washington in its place.
Since my election as Oklahoma attorney general in 2010, I have been a proud member of a group of federalism-minded state attorneys general who have methodically, indeed relentlessly, worked to restore the proper balance of power between the federal government and the states. In the past few months we have convinced the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to block President Obama’s unlawful executive action on illegal immigration and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to block the Obama EPA’s unlawful Waters of the United States rule. Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is currently considering our request to block the Obama EPA’s unlawful takeover of state energy economies through its so-called Clean Power Plan.
These lawsuits aren’t just jurisdictional turf wars between the states and Washington. No, as the Supreme Court has recognized, federalism is “more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity.” Rather, it “secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” Our constitutional structure in fact rests on what the Supreme Court has said might seem like a counterintuitive insight, that “freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.” And as the Court has also pointed out, while today we focus on the Bill of Rights as the primary protector of individual liberty, the Framers saw the vertical separation of powers embedded in the structure of the Constitution as the bulwark of individual liberty, “first by protecting the integrity of the governments themselves, and second by protecting the people, from whom all governmental powers are derived.”
That is why I fight this federalism fight. There simply is no greater threat to individual liberty and the viability of our great nation than the threat that comes from the continued consolidation of power in Washington, a consolidation that flies in the face of the division of power between the federal government and the states that is required by the Constitution.
There simply is no greater threat to individual liberty and the viability of our great nation than the threat that comes from the continued consolidation of power in Washington.
As we choose our next president, we must find a candidate who will be willing to take this federalism fight to the White House. I have been disheartened to hear candidate after candidate tell us about how his version of Washington will be bigger and better than the others. This misses the point entirely. The last thing we need in Washington is more federal hubris. What we need is a candidate committed to a structural reset of Washington that puts the federal government in its place and restores the proper balance of power between it and the states.
One candidate has been a welcome outlier on this issue. When Jeb Bush sat down with me and told me about his deep commitment to restoring the proper balance of power, I was impressed. And when he asked me to lead the drafting of a comprehensive federalism policy platform for his candidacy, I knew that he was willing to put his money where his mouth is. No other candidate for the Republican nomination has shown any level of commitment to federalism, much less the willingness to present a detailed blueprint for a federalism-based presidency.
The Restoring Federalism Platform unveiled by Governor Bush yesterday is a detailed and bold plan to withdraw the federal government from its hyperactive involvement in areas traditionally under the states’ authority and to guard against future temptations to regulate and legislate on every issue under the sun. The platform would give states more flexibility in how they manage programs funded by the federal government, such as Medicaid, K–12 education, child welfare, and senior programs. In return, the states become more accountable for results achieved, and federal programs become more responsive to the needs of the states, especially on matters where the states depend on efficient and timely federal decision-making, such as immigration and environmental protection.
The federalist approach to immigration reform is particularly noteworthy. The platform proposes revisions to the Immigration and Nationality Act that will allow the states an unprecedented role in aiding in the enforcement of federal immigration policy. When other candidates promise better federal immigration policies, we should be asking them: Why should we have any faith whatsoever that the federal government will adequately enforce those policies? By empowering the states, Governor Bush’s platform addresses the critical shortcoming of current federal immigration policy, which is not a lack of immigration laws, but rather a lack of enforcement of those laws.
This and the other issues addressed in the federalism platform prove that Governor Bush understands that we need a president willing to embrace the idea that Washington is not the answer to all, or even most, of our problems, regardless of who is in charge.
It is hubris that has gotten us into trouble in Washington. It is humility, principled leadership, and unwavering faith in the power of the states, the people, and our Constitution that will get us out.
— Scott Pruitt is the attorney general of Oklahoma.