In America, even those who trample on the Constitution must pretend to revere it, at least in politics. And so as the national government has been gradually–or dramatically–expanded over the last century, politicians and judges have scrupulously crafted alibis to explain why, golly, it turns out gigantic top-down government really was part of our constitutional design.

One of these fibs has grown like a tumor on the Commerce Clause, the enumerated power in Article I, section 8.

“Congress shall have the Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

This was one of the original reasons for replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, to facilitate trade among the states and prevent wasteful and dangerous commercial conflicts. But, says the Supreme Court, isn’t everything, at some level, about commerce? And so the Commerce Clause has been used as the reason why the national government can regulate wages, wolves, and backyard gardens (whether growing wheat or marijuana), to name just a few.

One might think that state governments, even state courts, would resist such federal overreach. All too often that is not the case. Last week, the Washington State Supreme Court happily embraced the overextended Commerce Clause to hold that the Federal Arbitration Act overlaps with–and preempts–Washington’s Condominium Act. The Court decided that selling and warrantying condos is “interstate commerce” because, well, some of the stuff used to build those condos probably came from another state. So much for limited federal power, and so much for states standing up for state authority against federal overreach.

(P.s. I actually think the Washington law is a boon for lawyers and harmful to builders, investors, and the economy. But if Washington State’s raison d’être, at least at times, is simply to serve as a warning to other states … isn’t that what “50 laboratories of democracy” is all about?)

Cross-posted at LibertyLive.org.

The balance of power between state and national governments was one of the most contentious issues for the American Founders.

The states were important historically, but also as a way to keep government close to the people and to divide government power into as many hands as practical in order to preserve liberty.

At the Constitutional Convention small states wanted every state to have an equal voice in the national government. Large states desired just the opposite—representation based on population would give them more power.

It was a compromise that created the U.S. Congress, where states are represented equally in the Senate but according to population in the House. That compromise not only broke the deadlock that threatened to derail the Constitution—it became the foundation for the unique American system of Federalism.

The national government was set up to provide national defense, manage foreign trade, and referee disputes between the states—in short, to provide the states with safety and commerce similar to the way the British Empire did for the 13 original colonies. The states were left to manage their internal affairs and to compete with one another; thus the states are sometimes referred to as our “fifty laboratories of democracy.”

Federalism fosters diversity by allowing groups of people in different states to manage their affairs differently, to innovate or remain the same, to address local needs. And by keeping government local, dividing it up, and making it compete, Federalism protects freedom.

The American system of states is not just unique—it has been uniquely successful. Federalism is an American invention worth preserving.

Referendum 70 (PDF) will give citizens the chance to vote on whether NPV should actually become law in Washington State if the measure gains enough signatures to make it on this November’s ballot. Download the Referendum 70 petition (PDF) here.

On the afternoon of Tuesday, April 28, Gov. Christine Gregoire signed SB 5599, making Washington the fifth state to join the National Popular Vote scheme. On the heels of that decision, David John Anderson filed a referendum, attempting to put the decision into the hands of the voters. The issue has gained attention and many comments, especially in response to a local editorial the morning of April 30th.

To the dismay of natives and neighbors, on Tuesday afternoon the state of Washington headed over the proverbial bridge, following Maryland, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Illinois into the Koza abyss.

After barely making it out of the Senate before the cuttoff on March 12, SB 5599, “Approving the entry of Washington into the agreement among the states to elect the president by national popular vote,” moved to the House State Government Operations and Tribal Affiars Committee. At a public hearing, more than two sign-in sheets were filled with the names of citizens opposed to the bill. Eight offered compelling testimony against it. On the other side were the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Joe McDermott, and a lobbyist for the National Popular Vote organization who merely offered to answer questions. Not a single committee member did, confirming to voters how lightly they take questions like how we elect our president.

In the last month it became clearer than ever how little legislators care about the opinion of their constituents. In spite of NPV’s claim to overwhelming approval from the public, their tactic seems to be to avoid the public eye. When they attract it, the response is not in their favor.

Even so, the committee passed the bill 5-2, moving it to Rules.

Late on April 15, SB 5599 passed the House, making Washington the ninth state where the bill has moved through both chambers. Yesterday afternoon Gov. Gregoire signed it, and the total number of NPV states went up to five.

In the last few weeks citizens recognized that their cries were falling on deaf ears and began discussing how they can still prevent Washington from disappearing into NPV’s anchluss. The morning after the governor signed the bill, David Anderson, a private citizen, filed a referendum.

It’s wonderful to see citizens take an active interest in protecting the voice of their state. But it’s bitterly ironic when they have to do it in spite of their elected officials.

There were four NPV/Koza bills introduced in Washington State in 2009. SB5599 passed both houses and was delivered to the Governor on April 21.