“The term "trias politica" or "separation of powers" was coined by Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, an 18th century French social and political philosopher. His publication, Spirit of the Laws , is considered one of the great works in the history of political theory and jurisprudence, and it inspired the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Constitution of the United States. Under his model, the political authority of the state is divided into legislative, executive and judicial powers. He asserted that, to most effectively promote liberty, these three powers must be separate and acting independently.” (Separation of Powers: An Overview/National Conference of State Legislatures. Last updated May 01, 2021
Besides advocating for the horizontal separation of powers within national governments, Montesquieu favored a vertical division of power between the central government and regional/local assemblies, in which regional assemblies had a degree of control over their own affairs. In his words:
“The inhabitants of a particular town are much better acquainted with its wants and interests than with those of other places; and are better judges of the capacity of their neighbours than of that of the rest of their countrymen. The members, therefore, of the legislature should not be chosen from the general body of the nation; but it is proper that in every considerable place a representative should be elected by the inhabitants.” (Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, 1748)
Montesquieu’s concept of a vertical division of power among levels of government is expressed in our Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Per United States v. Darby Lumber Co., its purpose was to allay fears that “the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.” Essentially, the Tenth Amendment balances the vast powers of the federal government against state sovereignty and limits the ability of the federal government to use state governments as an instrument of national policy. In practice, that means the federal government cannot force states to enforce or administer federal programs (with some exceptions).
For much of the past century, Republicans championed state rights in their fight against federal encroachment. Now that a Republican administration is threatening states and cities with funding cuts if they don’t comply with new federal directives, it’s the Democrats’ turn to embrace the cause of state rights. Here’s what the ACLU has to say about the new political reality:
“The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power.
…even when [the federal government] does attach conditions on funding, they must respect states’ 10th Amendment rights and the conditions must be clear, directly related to the purpose of the funding, not coercive, and cannot override constitutional rights…”
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.