Reclaiming the founding: federalism at 250 years
Matt Beienburg is the director of education policy at the Goldwater Institute and leads its Van Sittert Center for Constitutional Advocacy. His work focuses on educational freedom, parental rights, and strengthening civic understanding of America’s founding principles. Before joining Goldwater, he served as a senior analyst at the Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee, advising lawmakers on K–12 and higher education policy. He recently spoke with American Habits Editor Ray Nothstine.
The Declaration of Independence was not only a break from monarchy but a statement about how free people govern themselves. As we approach the 250th anniversary of American independence, what do you see as the Declaration’s most relevant lessons for today’s civic and constitutional debates?
Matt Beienburg: As we mark this 250th anniversary, many elements of the Declaration stand out. Of course, there’s the famous line about being endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That remains a philosophical cornerstone for understanding and appreciating our rights.
One point that feels familiar yet is still worth emphasizing, especially today, is the Declaration’s clarity about the purpose of government. We’ve all seen political debates where this seems to have been forgotten. The Declaration states plainly that government exists to secure our rights. It is not the source of those rights, nor does it create them. As Jefferson and the other founders made clear, government is instituted because we already possess these rights.
We’ve seen public figures suggest the opposite. A former vice-presidential candidate remarked that the idea our rights don’t come from government is something they say in Iran. Virginia Senator Tim Kaine argued that rights not originating from something higher than government is troubling. These views totally invert the Founders’ principles.
It declared that Americans recognize these unalienable rights and are now forming a government to protect them. While that concept often fades into the background, it remains essential to our constitutional order.
Both the Declaration and the Constitution reflect this idea and as we talk about our latest work, especially our initiative focused on the Tenth Amendment and federalism, these founding principles become even more relevant. Both documents rest on the understanding that government’s role is not to create our rights but to safeguard them and to structure political power in ways that respect them.
Love the idea of returning to first principles by bolstering language in state constitutions. Can that work as a civic reminder to our culture, too, given that constitutions ultimately depend on the culture and convictions of the people? Can those actions help people recognize and appreciate their founding documents even more?
Beienburg: I think it can. The Goldwater Institute recently released a proposal encouraging states to embed language in their constitutions similar to the Tenth Amendment, affirming that we have a government of enumerated powers, and that any powers not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people.
This principle is something many of us learned in grade school, yet it often gets lost in modern political debates. One of the pillars of the American experiment—our republican form of government—is federalism and the idea of limited power.
When people hear “federalism,” they might think of the federal government or the Federalist Party, but at its core it means we have a system with a national government in Washington, D.C., and sovereign state governments that do not simply dissolve into satellites of the federal government.
A former vice-presidential candidate remarked that the idea our rights don’t come from government is something they say in Iran.
The framers built a brilliant structure where most governing occurs closer to where people live. Instead of every issue being dictated by Washington, states were intended to remain largely self-governing on matters within their borders.
People know this in theory, but much of today’s conversation, still centers on Washington. We’re trying to remind people why federalism matters.
And it’s not a partisan idea. It cuts across political lines. Whether your preferred party is in power or not, the goal is to maintain a system that isn’t winner-take-all, where national political swings don’t dictate life in every state. The Constitution simply wasn’t designed that way. It was built on the existence of governors, state legislatures, and local self-government.
Our hope is that strengthening constitutional language will spark conversation, encourage lawmakers to return to first principles, and remind Americans that government works best when it is limited and closer to the people it serves.
You and Sean Beienburg argue that the upcoming semi-quincentennial offers states a chance to reaffirm federalism through constitutional language. Timing is often everything, are there feelings out there that we are potentially entering a period of civic and constitutional revival?
Beienburg: We’re certainly at a crossroads. Whether this moment leads to revival or decline remains to be seen, but it’s clearly a pivotal point. We’re seeing signs of both concern and hope. The A250 celebrations happening across the country provide an opportunity for people to refocus on founding principles. And after several years of negative narratives, like The 1619 Project, which in many ways seeks to undermine the American experiment, we’re also seeing renewed interest in teaching young people the pillars of civics and citizenship.
At the same time, there are troubling indicators. Polling from FIRE shows fewer than half of Americans believe the First Amendment protects all speech. Many respondents say that “hate speech” or speech deemed offensive should be restricted. Those alarm bells need to be taken seriously.
But there are also reasons for real optimism. We’ve partnered on teacher trainings with the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University. When teachers and students engage with the principles behind free speech, we see attitudes shift. In a recent boot camp for future teachers, about 80 percent emerged saying, “Of course you protect all speech.” Yes, some speech is offensive, ugly, or disturbing, but they recognize that having the government decide which ideas are permissible is far more dangerous.
For too long, students haven’t been exposed to this foundational civic content. But when students finally encounter the logic of the Constitution and the arguments for free expression, many become enthusiastic. Teachers, too, seem hungry for this material.
So, while the path forward isn’t entirely clear skies, the appetite is there. And that gives me optimism that we may be entering a civic revival.
You note that states should not be coerced into carrying out unconstitutional federal policies, what is called the “anti-commandeering principle.” What are a few examples of that and why is it so vital for protecting to self-government?
Beienburg: The core idea is that the federal government can’t force states to carry out unconstitutional directives. Our constitutional system is one of enumerated powers and the federal government is not given a blank check to pursue any policy it wishes. The framers intended its authority to be limited.
We’ve seen this tension come up in major cases. During the debates over Obamacare, for example, the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not threaten to withdraw all of a state’s Medicaid funding to pressure states into adopting a new policy. That would amount to financial coercion by using federal dollars to force states to do Washington’s bidding.
There are other examples. Past administrations, under the banner of affirmative action or “anti-racism,” have pushed policies that, in practice, attempted to impose unconstitutional racial preferences. Under the 14th Amendment, states cannot engage in racial discrimination. Yet federal agencies have at times suggested that state universities could lose funding unless they adopted DEI-related mandates or race-based admissions programs—amounting to unconstitutional requirements dressed up as federal conditions. The anti-commandeering principle protects states from being compelled to enforce or adopt such policies.
The COVID-19 pandemic provided one of the clearest modern illustrations of this, in which officials in Washington urged sweeping school closures and lockdowns. But because of the Tenth Amendment and the independence of state governments, states like Florida and Georgia were able to reopen schools far sooner than others. Imagine if the federal government had been able to say, “If you reopen your schools, we’ll cut your funding.” That would have been a direct violation of federalism, not to mention deeply damaging to millions of students.
Students, having lived through long school closures, often have a sharper appreciation for how harmful one-size-fits-all national policies can be. Federalism introduces humility into governance. It allows states to operate in their proper sphere, try different approaches, and avoid being forced into destructive national mandates.
States now on average receive 37 percent of their budget from federal taxpayers. What are some ways to get state lawmakers and the citizenry to care more about this fact?
Beienburg: It’s critical to raise awareness about this. When states become increasingly dependent on federal dollars, we end up with a system where taxpayers in places like Arizona send their money to Washington, D.C., only to have it redistributed back with strings attached. That gives the federal government control over the purse in ways the framers never intended and makes it far easier for Washington to pressure or coerce states.
Even when outright coercion violates the anti-commandeering principle, this dependence still creates a dynamic where the federal government can effectively call more of the shots. States begin to conform to federal preferences on issues that should be decided locally. We saw this vividly during debates over federal programs during recent government shutdowns—programs like SNAP are administered locally but are funded and controlled from Washington. That means states don’t get to decide the level or structure of services they believe best serve their citizens.
The question then becomes: how do we get lawmakers and citizens to care? One way is highlighting success stories where states have acted independently and achieved better outcomes than the federal status quo. School choice is a perfect example. Despite decades of rising federal spending, K–12 performance has been largely stagnant. But over the past few years, states across the country, through their own legislatures and governors, have adopted transformative reforms such as universal education savings accounts. These innovations didn’t come from Washington; they came from states acting on behalf of their own residents.
That’s the kind of message that resonates with lawmakers: they’re not stuck doing things the federal government’s way. You can adopt policies that are more accountable, more flexible, and better suited to your citizens’ needs.
So while there is real cause for concern about growing financial dependence on Washington, there are also powerful examples that underscore the value of state autonomy. When people see that state-driven policies can be more responsive and effective than federal directives, it becomes easier to appreciate why protecting state authority, and reducing reliance on federal dollars, really matters.
We are inundated with bad news but given that we are approaching 250 years of America, what do you feel like we are generally or collectively doing right from a perspective of self-government?
Beienburg: Sure. Obviously, people have different views about the country and its direction. But one thing the A250 celebrations highlight is that we are rallying around our founding ideas again. We’re studying and discussing our founding documents.
We’re also seeing real momentum at the state level. Starting with Arizona and the creation of SCETL at ASU, other states like North Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, Texas all have launched new civics programs through their legislatures. For years, civic education and constitutional literacy were allowed to fade into the background. We focused heavily on reading, math, and STEM, which are all essential, but civic knowledge and appreciation for our constitutional principles became something of an afterthought.
That is beginning to change. Many states are now requiring civics instruction for high school graduation, ensuring that students read and engage with the founding and grapple with their ideas.
Of course, we still see political tensions and talk of constitutional crises. There’s no shortage of stress on the system. As I’ve said, we are at a crossroads: either we return to our constitutional principles, or we continue down a path where each side simply tries to overpower the other.
But long-term, the health of the country is best served by recommitting to the Constitution and the Declaration not as relics, but as brilliant documents that established a remarkable system of self-government. When we collectively recognize and revere those principles, we strengthen the foundation that has carried the nation for nearly 250 years.
