The article argues the Constitution delegates national authority only where states cannot achieve an objective separately. Citing Federalist #14, #41 and others, it claims many modern 'collective action Constitution' advocates betray their own logic by favoring broad federal powers even when state provision is feasible.
— It offers a scalable rule-of-thumb for courts and policymakers to sort federal versus state jurisdiction, challenging drift toward open‑ended national authority.
Paul Moreno
2025.09.29
56% relevant
The article presents (via Lepore’s argument as summarized) the view that constitutional restraints and the Court’s curbs on the administrative state block national action on climate and equity, implicitly contesting the 'collective action' rationale for keeping federal power bounded.
James R. Rogers
2025.09.17
100% relevant
Rogers’ framing via Federalist #14 ('enumerated objects...not to be attained by the separate provisions of any') and his critique of scholars who 'deflect in favor of suboptimally expansive national authority.'
← Back to All Ideas