rural Nebraskans—or vice versa. The triumph of representationnwithout federahsm may be seen in such inspirednexperiments as Prohibition and, although the situation is anbit more complicated, Roe v. Wade. While the SupremenCourt is not an elected body, it is chosen by the Presidentnand approved of by the Congress. As such, it is supposed tonrepresent the national will on legal and constitutionalnquestions. For much of the 20th century, the nationalnjudiciary at all levels, backed if necessary by the armednforces, has deliberately overridden the federal principle innthe name of democracy and representative government,nalthough it has never been clear that a majority of votersnever approved of forced busing or the ban on school prayer.nFederalism, not republicanism or democracy, expressesnthe genius of the founders and of the American people. Thengreatest exponent of federalism, Thomas Jefferson, madenthe clearest exposition of the principle in his proposals fornpublic education in Virginia. In a letter to Joseph C.nCabell, Jefferson declared that the secret of good governmentnwas the division of power and the allocation ofnresponsibility to the appropriate levels of authority:nLet the national government be entrusted with thendefense of the nation and its foreign and federalnrelations; the state governments with the civil rights,nlaws, police, and administration of what concernsnthe State generally; the counties with the localnconcerns of the counties, and each ward [roughly antownship] direct the interests within itself. It is byndividing and subdividing these republics from thengreat national one down through all itsnsubordinations until it ends in the administration ofnevery man’s farm by himself, by placing underneveryone what his own eye may superintend, thatnall will be done for the best.nIn the forthcoming issue of Chronicles:nInstitutionalized Writingn”Despite these howls, however, Bulgakov was not shot,nthe theater was not closed down, and the play was notnbanned. The fact was—Stalin was coming to the theaternregularly to see it. From his personal loge, hidden fromnother viewers behind a slightiy drawn curtain, he, accordingnto the Art Theater’s archives, saw The Days of thenTurbins at least 15 times.”n—from “Thoughts on Mikhail Bulgakov”nby Leon Steinmetzn8 / CHRONICLESnnnIf Jefferson was the most thoroughgoing federalist, thenauthors oiThe Federalist were not far behind. Hamilton, innnumber 17, declared that the roots of federalism lay in “thenknown fact in human nature, that its affections are commonlynweak in proportion to the distance or diffusiveness ofnthe object.” Strongest in families, it grew progressivelynweaker as it was forced to extend itself to an entire nation.nHamilton also defended state sovereignty and denied thatnthe national government’s taxing power could be used as anpretext for interfering in the rights of states. In number 28nhe declared that state militias would be used to resist suchnusurpation. Madison concurred and in number 46 suggestednthat states would band together to prevent such encroachments.nEven the arch-centralist John Marshall declaredn(in his infamous decision on McCulloch v.nMaryland) that “no political dreamer was ever wild enoughnto think of breaking down the lines which separate thenstates, and of compounding the American people into onencommon mass.”nThe response of many “antifederalists” was simply thatnthe Constitution did not go far enough in its federalism.nPatrick Henry stuck at the phrase “‘We the people,’ insteadnof the states of America.” In the early years of the republic,nhowever, federalism seemed to work reasonably well. WhennTocqueville made his famous visit, he noted the vigor ofnlocal government in New England and observed that “thentownships are only subordinate to the state in those interestsnwhich I shall term social, as they are common to all thencitizens. They are independent in all that concerns themselves.”nIt would be a mistake to overemphasize the uniqueness ofnAmerican federalism. While the Constitution is entirelyndeserving of. the praise lavished upon it—indeed, it isnunderappreciated—ours is not the first attempt to constructna nation out of confederated polities. Madison, Adams, andnother well-read American statesmen were familiar withnsuch ancient experiments as the Achaean league and withnthe more recent examples of Switzerland and the HolynRoman Empire. In many respects it is the Empire, with itsnmosaic of local authorities and traditions and nicely gradednlevels of sovereignty, that is the best exemplar for Americannfederalism.nNot coincidentally, the most elaborate theory of federalismnwas put forward by Joannes Althusius (or Althaus), anGerman Calvinist lawyer who used the Holy RomannEmpire as his model. His Politics, first published in 1603, isna curious blend of Aristotle, Roman law, and Holy Scripture.nThe root concept is the Consociatio Symbiotica, thatnis, the natural association of people living together. In thenvery beginning of his work, Althusius states the dominantntheme:nPolitics is the art of allying people together forncreating, cultivating, and preserving a social lifenamong themselves. . . . All government is heldntogether by sovereignty and subjection; the humannrace right from the beginning proceeded fromnsovereignty and subjection. For Adam wasnconstituted lord and monarch by God over his wifenand all those who were born from her and thenrest. . . .n