Central American Federation

Home > Social Sciences and the Law > Political Science and Government > International Organizations

Central American Federation or Central American Union, political confederation (1825–38) of the republics of Central America—Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Salvador. United under a captaincy general in Spanish colonial times, they gained independence in 1821 and were briefly annexed to the Mexican empire formed by Agustín de Iturbide . The nations joined in a loose federal state, appointing (1825–29) as first president Manuel José Arce, who was succeeded (1830–38) by the liberal leader Francisco Morazán . Political and personal rivalries between liberals and conservatives, poor communication, and the fear of the hegemony of one state over another led to dissolution (1838) of the congress and the defeat (1839) of Morazán's forces by Rafael Carrera . In 1842, Morazán made an abortive attempt to reestablish the federation from Costa Rica. Later efforts by Nicaragua, Honduras, and Salvador failed, and the attempts of Justo Rufino Barrios (1885) and José Santos Zelaya (1895) only increased existing enmities. At the Central American conference of 1922–23, the U.S. recommendation of a union was not favorably received, partly because of earlier U.S. policies in Panama and Nicaragua. Nevertheless, geography, history, and practical expedience are factors that constantly encourage union. In 1951, the Organization of Central American States was formed to help solve common problems, and in 1960 the five nations established the Central American Common Market .

Bibliography: See T. L. Karnes, The Failure of Union: Central America, 1824–1960 (1961); N. Maritano, A Latin American Economic Community (1970).

federalism Federalism refers to the division of governmental powers between the national and state governments. The Founding Fathers created a federal system to overcome a tough political obstacle. They needed to convince independent states to join together to create a strong central government. Writing to George Washington before the Constitutional Convention, James Madison considered the dilemma. He said that establishing “one simple republic” that would do away with the states would be “unattainable.” Instead, Madison wrote, “I have sought for a middle ground which may at once support a due supremacy of national authority, and not exclude [the states].” Federalism was the answer.

Under federalism, both state and national governments may directly govern through their own officials and laws. Both levels of government derive their legitimacy from the Constitution, which endows each with supreme power over certain areas of government. Both state and federal governments must agree to changes in the Constitution. Both exercise power separately and directly over the people living under their authority, subject to the limits specified in the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the country. The Constitution and acts of the national government that conform to it are superior to constitutions, laws, and actions of state and local governments.

In the American federal system, the national (federal) government has certain powers that are granted only to it by the Constitution. The 50 state governments also have powers that the national government is not supposed to exercise. For example, only the federal government may coin money or declare war. Only the state government may establish local governments and conduct elections within the state. Some powers are shared by both federal and state governments, such as the power to tax and borrow money. Some powers are denied to the federal and state governments, such as granting titles of nobility and passing bills of attainder.

In the American federal system, the powers of the national government are limited. However, within its field or range of powers, the national government is supreme. The states can neither ignore nor contradict federal laws and the Constitution. The core idea of American federalism is that two levels of government (national and state) exercise power separately and directly on the people at the same time. Under federalism, the state of Indiana has authority over its residents, but so does the federal government based in Washington, D.C. Indiana residents must obey the laws of their state government and their federal government.

Federalism is a central principle of the Constitution, but the balance of power between the state and national governments was not defined exactly at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Since then, debates about the rights and powers of states in relation to the federal government have continued.

In The Federalist No. 45, James Madison gave his vision of how federalism would work:
The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the states.

However, the balance of power within the federal system—between the national government and state governments—has changed steadily since Madison's time. Through constitutional amendments, Supreme Court decisions, federal statutes, and executive actions, the powers of the national government have generally expanded to overshadow those of the states.

The development of national government power within the federal system was advanced initially by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall. For example, the Court's decisions in Fletcher v. Peck (1810), McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Cohens v. Virginia (1821), and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) struck down state government actions that were judged in violation of federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

The Civil War (1861–65) established, once and for all, that in American federalism a state has no right to secede from the federal Union. In the wake of this war, the U.S. Supreme Court set forth the inviolable terms of federal Union in Texas v. White (1869): “The Constitution in all its provisions looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.”

During the 20th century, the Supreme Court has tended to make decisions that have diminished the power of state governments in their relationships with the national government. This trend was advanced strongly after 1937, in cases such as West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), when the Supreme Court began to uphold actions of the federal government to regulate economic activities in the states. During the 1950s and 1960s, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren upheld federal civil rights laws that restricted the actions of state governments to deprive racial minorities of individual rights. Further, in numerous landmark decisions the Court used the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to apply most of the federal Bill of Rights to state governments. These kinds of decisions have limited the powers of state governments in regard to the civil rights and liberties of individuals.

From 1995 to 2000, however, the Supreme Court made some decisions that favored the rights and powers of state governments over the federal government. For example, the Court ruled in United States v. Lopez (1995) that the federal government's commerce power did not extend to the regulation of gun possession by individuals near schools. Rather, this matter was left to the discretion of state and local governments. In Printz v. United States (1997) the Court struck down part of a federal gun control law that required local officials to do a background check on a customer before a gun sale could be completed. The Court held that the Constitution's 10th Amendment prohibits the federal government from controlling or commandeering certain acts of state or local officials that are conducted according to powers reserved to state governments. In Alden v. Maine (1999) the Court decided that the 11th Amendment prohibits private individuals from suing a state for violation of a federal law, in this instance the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Court again used the 11th Amendment in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000) to rule that another federal law, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, could not be the basis for a private lawsuit against a state. According to the Supreme Court, such issues are to be resolved in state courts according to state laws.
See also Incorporation doctrine; Texas v. White; West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

Bibliography

Sources Daniel J. Elazar , American Federalism: A View from the States (New York: Harper & Row, 1984).
Robert A. Goldwin and William A. Schambra, eds., How Federal Is the Constitution? (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1987).
Judith S. Kaye , “Federalism's Other Tier”, Constitution 3, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 48–55.