PLCY 703 LIBERTY UNIVERSITY Analytic Paper Original Intent 2025.docx

Intent Analytic 1

Analytic Paper: Original Intent

La-Kee M. Smith

Helms School of Government, Liberty University

Analytic Paper: Original Intent

Introduction

The Founding Fathers’ envisioned a limited federal government constrained by

enumerated powers. The principle of subsidiarity, rooted in constitutional federalism and

informed by biblical stewardship, holds that decisions should be made at the most local level

Intent Analytic 2

Conditional federal funding is among the most consequential instruments of this

become a tool of centralized leverage utilized primarily by the executive branch. This

transformation raises questions about the integrity of federalism in education and the

constitutional legitimacy of executive influence over academic governance. This paper will

address the research question: How has the use of executive conditional funding in higher

education contributed to a constitutional drift from the Founders’ original intent for limited

federal involvement in state-led domains?

This question is highly relevant to contemporary debates over state sovereignty,

academic freedom, and the appropriate limits of executive power. It is also essential to

understanding whether contemporary federal involvement reflects an appropriate evolution of

policy or a departure from the Constitution’s original intent. Analyzing the role of executive

supplemental support to dominant regulatory influence by examining the historical trajectory of

executive conditional funding. It will argue that executive conditional funding represents a form

of punitive federalism, where federal aid is utilized as leverage to control, incentivize conformity,

or punish dissent, rather than provide assistance--especially in areas of speech, diversity

mandates, or institutional governance. Drawing on constitutional sources, court decisions, and

Intent Analytic 3

recent policy cases, this paper will also analyze how punitive federalism contributes to the

intergovernmental boundaries and a return to the Founders’ intended model of subsidiarity and

constitutional restraint.

Original Constitutional Intent: Federalism, Education, and Subsidiarity

The Founding Fathers’ constitutional design was based on a system that limited federal

powers and entrusted the states with substantial sovereignty. According to the Tenth

Amendment, education was left under the authority of the states and was not enumerated as

federal responsibility in the Constitution. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the

while those retained by the states were “numerous and indefinite” (Wilmarth, 1989 p. 1271).

This division was intended to be pragmatic and ethical as the Framers viewed state control over

education as essential to preserve local customs, morals in instruction, and guarantee the best

development of good citizens. Even well-intended overreaching policies were considered a

threat to this very strategic and intentional balance created by the Constitution (Wilmarth,

1989).

According to McIlroy (2003), subsidiarity calls for higher levels of authority to defer to

lower ones when those bodies are capable of managing affairs at their level, echoing the

Intent Analytic 4

Founders’ original constitutional design. In the context of education, subsidiarity places

context or the mission of the institute (McIlroy, 2003). The Founders’ commitment to a

restrained federal role was strategic and based in moral conviction about the righteous

distribution of authority. Wright’s model of intergovernmental relations argues that governance

functions are best handled by those closest to the issue, supporting the theological viewpoint of

human beings as image-bearers of God entrusted with responsibility for themselves and their

surroundings (Wright, 1988).

Keeping the power close to the people and avoiding undue intergovernmental burdens

was a strategy based in ethical stewardship utilized by the Founders to prevent future political

instability. State constitutions aligned with the idea of education as a local matter with most

states including provisions for public instruction. Elazar (1989) argues that the early republic

autonomy, specifically in education, there is a marked increase in centralized power through

mechanisms not originally intended by the Constitution (Bulman-Pozen, 2014). The growing use

of executive conditional funding leads this trend with federal agencies imposing regulatory

compliance or ideological conformity as prerequisites for grant approval. Using this practice, the

executive branch is able to bypass the legislative process and exert significant influence over

Intent Analytic 5

state and institutional decision-making Bulman-Pozen (2014). According to Bulman-Pozen

conditions to enforce policy goals without legislative oversight or judicial clarity, undermining

the balance of powers envisioned by the Constitution and expands executive authority into

domains historically reserved for the states.

The described shift reflects punitive federalism, a broader trend where funding is used as

a tool of coercion or compulsion rather than cooperation. The education sector is a prime

have increasingly been used by federal agencies to pressure universities into adopting speech

policies, diversity mandates, or interpretations of Title IX that align with executive priorities.

Institutions that fail to comply often face the revocation of grants or exclusion from future

funding opportunities, creating a climate of fear and dependence. These tactics reflect a

has been fueled by hyperpartisanship that renders Congress ineffective, allows the President to

overreach, bureaucracy to abound, and leaves the People frustrated. In the education context,

this dynamic goes beyond a departure from cooperative federalism but aids a fundamental

transformation in the distribution of power in American governance in direct conflict with the

Founders’ original intent.

Intent Analytic 6

Biblical and Theological Foundations for Subsidiarity and Educational Authority

Scripture supports the idea that responsibility and authority should be exercised at the most

local level capable of fulfilling a task. For instance, Exodus 18:21–23 of The Holy Bible, English

Standard Version (2021) tells the story of Moses being advised to delegate governance to “able

men” over groups of tens, fifties, hundreds, and thousands. This constitutes an early model of

tiered, decentralized governance that promotes accountability and efficiency. Moses’ delegation

was meant to prevent the central leadership from being overwhelmed while honoring the

competence of the appointed leaders and aligns with the core of subsidiarity. When applied to

education policy, subsidiarity holds that state governments and local institutions, which are

closest to the families and communities they serve, are best equipped to shape instruction,

culture, and values in ways that reflect the needs of their people. This principle is rooted in a

Romans 13:1 affirms that “there is no authority except from God,” and that all governing

authorities are accountable to Him. This passage calls into question the unchecked expansion of

executive power, particularly because it bypasses constitutional processes and undermines the

legitimate authority of state governments. Similarly, Proverbs 11:14 states, “Where there is no

guidance, a people perish, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.” Centralized,

topdown educational mandates often ignore the “counselors” closest to students—teachers,

Intent Analytic 7

stewardship calls for the responsible oversight of what has been entrusted to one's care (1 Peter

reinforced by the Constitution’s silence on federal involvement (U.S. Constitution, n.d.).

Executive overreach, using conditional funding and punitive mandates, undermines the

stewardship entrusted to the states and reassigns it to unelected agencies. This not only violates

federalist principles but disrupts the moral order embedded in scriptural models of governance.

Through this lens, the constitutional drift toward centralized educational control is not only a

political issue but a moral and theological one, distorting the God-ordained distribution of

Scripture rightfully sought to prevent.

The growing use of executive conditional funding in higher education represents a

deliberate and dangerous departure from the Founders’ original intent. It violates both

constitutional structure and biblical governance principles. While federal involvement in

education has existed for decades, the current trajectory reflects an escalation in overreach

beyond the executive branch’s intended scope. In recent years, what began as necessary federal

involvement has shifted from a supplemental support system to a tool for exerting centralized

control over education, specifically to limit voices that promote free thought and speech.

Moreover, these overreaching policies are being enforced without legislative debate, state

consent, or any value for the Tenth Amendment. This bypass of the deliberative process not only

undermines the role of Congress and the states, but also contributes to the erosion of public

Intent Analytic 8

constitutional republic. I believe that education policy, particularly at the higher education level,

reasons and because it preserves the moral agency of those closest to the governed.

throughout Scripture. Similar to Exodus 18 and Romans 13 represent the subsidiarity model, the

modeling servant leadership by using His authority for the good of the those He led (Mark

10:42). Centralized control, especially when it silences dissent or penalizes noncompliance with

ideological agendas, reflects the coercive tendencies of the executive branch rather than the

servant leadership model promoted in the Bible (Matthew 20:25–28).

The Founders understood that power consolidated in one branch or one level of

government would inevitably undermine liberty and threaten the federalist structure through

the distortion of the moral framework on which the nation was founded. Still, we are witnessing

an increased reliance on fiscal coercion, trading persuasion and partnership with compulsion

and control, in an effort to overstep checks and balances. From a biblical and historical

perspective, the wisdom of subsidiarity, stewardship, and servant leadership conflicts with this

Intent Analytic 9

righteous responsibility. The framers understood that centralized authority is a step toward

believe that returning to a model grounded in subsidiarity, constitutional restraint, and moral

stewardship is necessary not only for good governance but for the preservation of liberty,

particularly in academic and civic discourse. This requires rejecting the use of executive

conditional funding as a coercive tool to restore its supportive role as opposed to using it to

support centralized control.

whether consciously acknowledged or not. 1 Samuel 8 illustrates a timeless human tendency to

trade liberty for the perceived security of a powerful central figure. “…And they said, 'No! But

there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may

judge us and go out before us and fight our battles (1 Samuel 8:19-20).'" The Israelites’ desire

Critics support Elazar’s observation that national action may be justified as a means of

securing equality of citizenship when state responses are inadequate. They argue that federal

conditional funding is necessary to uphold uniform educational standards, safeguard civil rights,

and ensure equal opportunities across states (Elazar, 1987). Others argue that executive

authority should be expanded to balance Congressional gridlocks or when states fail to address