Scarsdale's Abigail Haber's Winning Essay: Who Tells Me Who I am Supposed to Marry?

Scarsdale High School junior Abigail Haber has won the John Jay Prize in U.S. History. On behalf of the Scarsdale Republican Town Committee, Mr. Jim Burkee, a program director at Concordia College, gave a speech and awarded the prize to Abigail at a public ceremony on December 17th for her essay "Who tells me who I'm supposed to marry?".

Abigail entered her essay in the SRTC's first-ever essay contest "Engaging U.S. History: Scarsdale Student Essay Contest". Abigail was awarded a check for $500 and an engraved platter commemorating her prize. Abigail is an accomplished writer. She is the vice president of SHS's Creative Writing Club, is involved in the school newspaper, and has been published in several national literary magazines. Abigail also plays the clarinet and is a member of SHS's speech team. She is also a history buff.

During the award ceremony, Steve Mayo, a co-host of WVOX's The Steve Mayo Show, invited Abigail to appear on the show, which is 1460 on the AM dial and airs every Monday night at 6.

Here is the text of Abigail's award-winning essay:

Who tells me who I'm supposed to marry? Using Federalism in a historical perspective of the Constitution in order to shape modern understanding about same sex marriage

As the Revolutionary War drew to a close and the United States came out as victors, the people knew they wanted a government different from the despotic system of Great Britain. After first drafting the Articles of Confederation, the Framers realized there was a need for a strong central government that could control the states, but also a way for the people to be represented in order to preserve their liberties. From this system came the idea of Federalism, a political theory that is based on a balance of state and federal power. Just as many of the concepts established in the Constitution are derived from ideas of Federalism because they seek to clearly balance state and federal powers, the current issue of same sex marriage harkens back to Federalist ideals because of the debate about Federal versus state control of the issue.

Many of the laws and concepts defined at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 conform to an understanding of Federalism because the constitutional framework sought a balance between national and state government in an effort to prevent tyranny within the American government. One significant concept that was voted into law early on in the Convention was the idea of checks and balances. The Framers used the idea to mitigate despotism within the three branches of the American government: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The legislative branches would be composed of two governing bodies, the House of Representatives elected by the people, and the Senate . If a law was to be composed by one group, the law would have to be approved by the other group and the President in order to be passed into law. The judges of the judicial branch would be duly elected by the President and the Senate for a lifelong term . This system was designed to protect the Americans from the concentrated power of the King that they had just escaped from. While election of the President and the House of Representatives was by the people, the Framers made sure to have the Senate not be elected by the people. This struck a balance between complete absolutism, and the unchecked power of the masses. By putting power into many hands in the government, the Framers practiced the idea of Federalism. However, the delegates made sure also to exercise the ideas of Federalism by assuring power for state governments as well.

The idea of Federalism is clearly represented in the Constitution because the delegates clearly delineated the power of the central and the state governments. This idea, commonly known as "enumerated powers", is expressed in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. This part clearly defines the power of the central government. These powers include borrowing money, declaring war, and collecting taxes . This limiting of power suggests that any other necessary legislation is in the hands of the state. However, Article I Section 10 forbids certain authority vested to the state. All states are prohibited to exercise certain power such as entering into treaties, lay duties on imports or exports, or enter into war with a foreign country . By defining the power of the central government and limiting that of the states, the Constitution was able to create a strong central authority economically, politically, and socially. However, the Constitution enabled states to create their own government by granting them certain powers and by giving them the ability to create their own state legislatures. This allowed a coexistence between the power of the state government and of the central government that would appease both the citizens who wanted to safeguard their liberties, and those in government who believed that the American people should have some restrictions. Despite this balance, there is still some ambiguity in the Constitution that is still under contention today. This lack of clarity is in the "elastic clause" of the Constitution which states "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." In simpler terms, the U.S. government is allowed to pass any laws that are within the power stated in the Constitution. This uncertainty has sparked a debate today, about what powers are in the hands of the central government, and what powers belong to the states?

One issue that has brought up this debate about Federalism is same-sex marriage. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defensive Marriage Act ("DOMA"), which only acknowledged heterosexual marriage, and denied many civil rights to same sex couples . States began to announce constitutional bans on same sex marriage in their constitutions. However, some states begin to legalize gay marriage, such as Massachusetts . There was a public call for the Federal government to reach a consensus on whether or gay marriage is constitutional? In 2012, a Federal court ruled California's legislation Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional, on the grounds that it wrongly excluded same sex couples because same sex couples were viewed as a minority without having proper rights. Finally, in the summer of 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional. This repeal grants many more rights to same sex couples. However, any state has the right not to legalize or recognize lawful marriage from another state according to Section 2 of Doma . On October 6, the Supreme Court repealed bans on same sex marriage in five states , but did not provide a ruling on the national scope of the issue. As litigation against state bans on gay marriage continues to rage on, there is a question as to whether it is truly the responsibility of the national government to decide? While recent legislation from the White House, like the repeal of DOMA, has seemed to imply that the government is leaning towards a national legalization of gay marriage, there has been no explicit legislation so far. This push and pull between state courts and the Supreme Court has raised questions involving ideas of state and Federal power. In this sense, this modern issue is attempting to conform to historical ideals of Federalism. Rather than having a divisive balance between state and central power that was established in the Constitution, there is a debate about who has the authority to rule on this issue. Perhaps by deeply reflecting on the ideas of federalism, there will be a consensus on this controversial issue.

While the ideas of Federalism are so deeply ingrained in our nation's heritage, there are also some modern issues that the Framers did not address. Often, there is no clear-cut way to determine whether the federal government or the state government has the authority to rule on these issues. While it is difficult to determine where this power should be vested, it is our duty as a democratic nation to remember the idea of the political pendulum. If a government swings too far to one extreme, either too centralized, or too local, radicalized change will follow. If our government feels it necessary to go to these extremes, then it is essential to decide whether it might be time for America to undergo radicalized change.      

Notes:

1-4) Alan Brinkley, American History, Twelfth Edition (Boston, McGraw Hill, 2007), 168.
5, 6, 8) The United States Constitution. Article I, Section 8, & Article I, Section 10.
7) US Legal. (accessed November 20, 2014)
9, 13) Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation: Frequently Asked Questions about Doma
10, 11, 12) Gay Marriage Pros and Cons: Gay Marriage Timeline.