📚 The Debates around the extent to which the US remains federal today | 关于美国今天在多大程度上仍为联邦制国家的辩论
Federalism, the division of sovereignty between a central government and regional units, is a foundational principle of the US Constitution. Over more than two centuries, the balance of power has shifted dramatically, prompting heated debates about whether the United States can still be described as a genuinely federal system. While the constitutional architecture of dual sovereignty remains intact, the practical concentration of authority in Washington leads many to ask: how federal is the US today?
联邦制是一种将主权在中央政府与地区单元之间进行划分的体制，是美国宪法的根本原则。经过两个多世纪，权力平衡发生了剧变，引发了关于美国是否仍可被描述为一个真正联邦体系的激烈争论。虽然双重主权的宪政架构依然存在，但权力实际上向华盛顿集中，让许多人不禁发问：今天的美国还有几分联邦色彩？
1. The Constitutional Framework of US Federalism | 美国联邦制的宪法框架
The US Constitution establishes a system of limited, enumerated powers for the federal government, with all other powers reserved to the states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. This design was intended to create a federal balance, preventing tyranny from either a single central authority or fragmented state governments. The Framers envisioned a dual federalism in which the national and state governments operated in largely separate spheres of responsibility.
美国宪法为联邦政府设定了一个有限的、列举的权力体系，而根据第十修正案，其余权力保留给各州或人民。这一设计旨在建立联邦平衡，防止单一中央权威或碎片化的州政府走向专制。制宪者设想了一种双重联邦制，在此框架下，全国政府与州政府在各自大致分离的职责范围内运作。
Over time, however, several constitutional clauses have been interpreted in ways that greatly expand federal reach. The 'elastic clause' (necessary and proper), the commerce clause, and the supremacy clause have all provided legal justification for Congress and the executive to involve themselves in areas once managed exclusively by the states. These clauses are at the heart of the debate about whether the original federal character has been eroded.
然而随着时间的推移，部分宪法条文的解释大大扩展了联邦的触角。“弹性条款”（必要与适当条款）、贸易条款和最高条款都为国会和行政部门介入曾经由各州专属管理的领域提供了法律依据。这些条款正是关于美国最初的联邦属性是否已被削弱的争论核心所在。
2. From Dual to Cooperative Federalism | 从双重联邦制到合作联邦制
In the nineteenth century, dual federalism – often compared to a layer cake – meant clear jurisdictional boundaries. The federal government handled foreign affairs, coinage, and interstate commerce, while states regulated health, education, and criminal justice. This separation began to erode during the Progressive Era and the New Deal, when the need for coordinated national responses to economic crises blurred the lines.
十九世纪时，常被比作“分层蛋糕”的双重联邦制意味着清晰的管辖权界限。联邦政府负责外交、铸币和州际贸易，而各州管理卫生、教育和刑事司法。这种分离在进步时代和新政期间开始瓦解，因为应对经济危机需要全国性的协调，模糊了彼此间的界线。
The New Deal of the 1930s inaugurated cooperative federalism, in which federal, state, and local governments jointly administered public programmes. This model mixed responsibilities and funding, often through federal grants-in-aid. Critics argue that cooperative federalism turned states into administrative agents of Washington, while defenders see it as a pragmatic response to problems that transcend state borders.
1930年代的新政开启了合作联邦制，联邦、州和地方政府共同管理公共项目。这一模式通常借助联邦拨款混合了职责与资金。批评者认为合作联邦制把各州变成了华盛顿的行政代理人，而辩护者则视之为对那些超越州界的问题所做出的务实回应。
3. The New Federalism and Attempts at Devolution | 新联邦制与权力下放的尝试
From the Nixon era through the Reagan presidency, a 'New Federalism' sought to reverse the centralisation trend by consolidating categorical grants into block grants and returning discretion to the states. The idea was to reduce federal control and allow state experimentation. Some successes were achieved, most notably in welfare reform under the Clinton administration, which gave states wide latitude over Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
从尼克松时代到里根总统任期，“新联邦制”试图通过将分类拨款合并为整笔拨款并将自由裁量权归还各州来扭转中央集权的趋势。其理念是减少联邦控制并允许各州进行政策实验。部分努力取得了成功，最突出的是克林顿政府时期的福利改革，让各州在“贫困家庭临时援助”项目上拥有了很大自主权。
Nevertheless, these devolutionary efforts were often limited. Congress continued to attach conditions to grants, and federal mandates – sometimes unfunded – kept states on a tight leash. The tension between the rhetoric of devolution and the reality of persistent federal oversight underscores a central theme in the debate: has the US ever truly re-federalised, or are these merely symbolic adjustments?
然而，这些权力下放的努力往往十分有限。国会继续为拨款附加条件，而联邦指令——有时缺乏资金支持——仍牢牢束缚着各州。权力下放的口号和联邦持续监督的现实之间的张力，突显了辩论的一个中心主题：美国是否真的重新联邦化过，还是这不过是象征性的调整？
4. The Growth of Federal Government Power | 联邦政府权力的增长
Federal power has expanded not just through legislation but also via executive orders, judicial rulings, and the sheer scale of the national budget. The rise of a national security state after World War II, the creation of vast entitlement programmes such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the federal government's role in civil rights enforcement all contributed to a Washington-centric polity. Today, the federal government influences areas from education standards to environmental regulation, domains originally reserved to the states.
联邦权力的扩张不仅通过立法实现，还借助行政命令、司法裁决以及国家预算的巨大规模。二战之后国家安全国家的崛起、医疗保险与医疗补助等庞大福利项目的创建，以及联邦政府在民权执行中的角色，都促成了一个以华盛顿为中心的政治形态。如今，联邦政府的影响力从教育标准延伸到环境监管，这些原本都是各州的保留领域。
The response to national crises has consistently strengthened the federal hand. The 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic saw Washington deploy massive stimulus packages, set public health guidelines, and in some cases override state decisions. Each crisis has added layers of federal capacity, prompting scholars to speak of an 'administrative state' that seems to operate beyond the original federal design.
应对全国危机的行动持续强化着联邦的手腕。2008年金融危机和COVID-19疫情期间，华盛顿推出了大规模刺激方案，设定了公共卫生指南，并在某些情况下凌驾于各州的决定之上。每一次危机都增添了联邦的职能层次，促使学者们谈论一个似乎已超出最初联邦设计的“行政国家”。
5. Fiscal Federalism: The Power of the Purse | 财政联邦制：资金的力量
Fiscal federalism refers to the financial relationships between levels of government. Federal grants to state and local governments are a powerful tool for shaping policy. Categorical grants come with strict spending requirements, while block grants offer more flexibility. However, even block grants often include conditions that extend federal influence into state-level priorities such as transportation, education, and healthcare.
财政联邦制指各级政府间的财政关系。联邦向州和地方政府的拨款是塑造政策的有力工具。分类拨款附有严格的支出要求，而整笔拨款提供了更多灵活性。然而，即便是整笔拨款，也常常包含条件，将联邦的影响力延伸至交通、教育、医疗保健等州级优先事务。
Unfunded mandates – federal requirements imposed on states without providing sufficient funds – have been a particularly contentious issue. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 attempted to limit them, but exceptions for civil rights and other priorities have allowed the practice to continue. Many state officials argue that such mandates undermine the very essence of federalism by forcing expenditure without local consent.
无资金支持指令——即联邦在不提供充足资金的情况下向各州施加的要求——一直是个颇具争议的问题。1995年的《无资金支持指令改革法》试图限制这种情况，但针对民权和其他优先事项的例外使该做法得以延续。许多州官员认为，此类指令迫使各州在未经本地同意的情况下支出，从根本上动摇了联邦制的本质。
6. The Supreme Court and the Boundaries of Federalism | 最高法院与联邦制的边界
The Supreme Court plays a crucial gatekeeping role in defining the limits of federal power. While it has at times checked federal overreach – for instance, in United States v. Lopez (1995), where the Court limited the use of the commerce clause – the general trend over the long term has been towards judicial endorsement of federal authority. Decisions such as NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) upheld the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as a tax, illustrating how creative statutory interpretation can preserve expansive federal power.
最高法院在界定联邦权力的界限方面扮演着关键的守门人角色。虽然它有时会限制联邦越权——例如在1995年的合众国诉洛佩斯案中，法院限制了贸易条款的使用——但长期以来的总体趋势是司法上对联邦权威的认可。 全国独立企业联合会诉西贝利厄斯案（2012年）等判决将《平价医疗法案》的个人强制保险令作为税收加以维持，说明创造性的法条解释如何能保留广泛的联邦权力。
The Court’s conservative shift in recent years has led to rulings that reassert state sovereignty in areas such as abortion (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 2022) and environmental regulation. These decisions fuel the argument that federalism is far from dead and that the states can still serve as robust counterweights to Washington. Yet, the Court’s willingness to limit federal power remains selective and unpredictable.
近年来最高法院的保守转向导致在堕胎（2022年多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案）和环境监管等领域重申州主权的裁决。这些裁定助长了联邦制远未消亡且各州仍能充当华盛顿有力制衡的论点。然而，最高法院限制联邦权力的意愿依然是选择性的和不可预测的。
7. Federalism under Recent Administrations | 近期政府下的联邦制
The Obama, Trump, and Biden presidencies each strained federal-state relations in distinct ways. Obama’s use of executive actions on immigration and healthcare, Trump’s deployment of emergency powers for border wall funding, and Biden’s vaccine mandates all demonstrated how executive power can bypass the states and impose uniform national policies. Each presidency was accused by opponents of undermining federalism, while supporters emphasised national unity and efficiency.
奥巴马、特朗普和拜登三任总统各自以不同方式考验着联邦与州的关系。奥巴马在移民和医疗保健上运用行政措施、特朗普为边境墙资金调遣紧急权力、拜登推行疫苗强制令，都展示了行政权力如何能绕过各州并施加统一的国家政策。每位总统都被反对者指责削弱联邦制，而支持者则强调国家统一与效率。
At the same time, state resistance has been vigorous. Sanctuary cities opposed federal immigration enforcement under Trump, and multiple states sued the Biden administration over vaccine rules. This dynamic points to a resilient but conflictual federalism: states are not passive recipients of federal orders, but they often act through litigation rather than autonomous policymaking, reflecting a heavily judicialised version of federalism.
与此同时，各州的抵制也十分有力。在特朗普时期，庇护城市反对联邦移民执法，多个州因疫苗规定起诉拜登政府。这种动态指向一种具有韧性但充满冲突的联邦制：各州并非被动接受联邦命令，但它们往往通过诉讼而非自主决策来行动，这反映出一个高度司法化的联邦制版本。
8. States’ Rights and Independent Action | 州权与独立行动
Proponents of a still-robust federalism point to the many policy areas in which states continue to exercise substantial autonomy. Criminal law, family law, property law, and large parts of public health and education remain fundamentally state-driven. The variation in state laws on cannabis legalisation, gun regulation, and voting rules demonstrates that states are laboratories of democracy, producing very different outcomes from California to Texas.
支持美国仍具强健联邦制的人指出，在许多政策领域各州依然享有实质性自治。刑法、家庭法、财产法以及公共卫生和教育的很大部分根本上仍由各州主导。各州在大麻合法化、枪支管制和投票规则上的法律差异，表明州是民主的实验室，从加利福尼亚到得克萨斯产生了截然不同的结果。
Interstate compacts and coordinated state litigation strategies further illustrate that states can work together to bypass or challenge federal policy. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and multi-state opioid settlements show that states can act collectively to address national issues without waiting for Washington. Yet, the fact remains that states often need federal funds or legal permission to fully operationalise these initiatives.
州际协议与协调一致的州诉讼策略进一步表明，各州能够协作以绕过或挑战联邦政策。区域温室气体倡议和多州阿片类药物和解案显示，各州可以集体行动来应对全国性问题，而无需等待华盛顿。然而事实仍然是，各州往往需要联邦资金或法律许可才能完全实施这些举措。
9. The Influence of National Political Polarisation | 全国政治两极化的影响
Rising political polarisation has transformed federalism from a largely structural question into a partisan battleground. Issues such as abortion, voting rights, and climate change see 'red' and 'blue' states moving in opposite directions, often in direct opposition to federal policy when the White House is held by the other party. This pattern can strengthen federalism by energising state-level activism, but it simultaneously encourages national factions to seek uniform federal solutions when they control Congress and the presidency.
不断加剧的政治两极化已将联邦制从一个主要的结构性问题转变为党派战场。堕胎、投票权和气候变化等问题上，“红州”与“蓝州”背道而驰，当白宫由另一党控制时，它们常常直接反对联邦政策。这一模式可以通过激发州级行动主义来加强联邦制，但同时也会促使全国性派别在控制国会和总统职位时寻求统一的联邦解决方案。
The result is a whipsaw effect: policy swings wildly depending on which party wins the White House or a Supreme Court majority, undermining the stable, dual-sovereignty model that federalism originally promised. Some commentators argue that this is not federalism at all, but rather a two-tier system of temporary central dominance occasionally interrupted by assertive state responses.
其结果是政策随白宫或最高法院多数席位的变动而剧烈摇摆，破坏了联邦制最初承诺的那种稳定的双重主权模式。一些评论者认为，这根本不是联邦制，而是一个两层体系：中央暂时主导，偶尔被强势的州回应所打断。
10. Conclusion: A Mixed System Leaning Centralised | 结论：偏向中央集权的混合体系
The debate over whether the US remains federal today cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. The formal architecture of federalism – separate state constitutions, elections, and law-making powers – endures. In practice, however, the federal government's fiscal dominance, expansive interpretations of constitutional clauses, and the political pressure for national uniformity mean that state autonomy is often more constrained than the Founders would have anticipated.
关于美国今天是否仍为联邦制国家的争论，无法用简单的“是”或“否”来回答。联邦制的正式架构——独立的州宪法、选举和立法权——依然存在。然而在实践中，联邦政府的财政主导地位、对宪法条款的宽泛解释以及追求全国一致的政治压力，意味着州的自治往往比建国者们预想的受到更多限制。
What exists today is a deeply intertwined system where federal and state powers are blended in almost every major policy area. Whether one labels this 'coercive federalism', 'administrative federalism', or simply a centralised federation, the United States undeniably operates far from the layer-cake model of the eighteenth century. The debate thus centres on degree rather than kind, and the pendulum is likely to continue swinging with political tides, making the question of American federalism a permanently live issue.
今天存在的是一种深度融合的体系，联邦与州的权力几乎在每个主要政策领域都交织互通。不论称之为“强制联邦制”、“行政联邦制”，还是只是一个中央集权的联邦，美国无疑已远非十八世纪的层叠蛋糕模式。因此，辩论的核心是程度而非种类，而钟摆很可能会继续随政治潮流摇摆，使美国联邦制的问题成为一个历久弥新的议题。
Published by TutorHao | US Federalism Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
或截图后用「扫一扫 → 相册」选择本图