Federalist Number Three finds John Jay making a case for the centralization of foreign affairs powers in one national government. 

Jay talks about the difficulties and conflicts that may result with other nations if thirteen separate governments are grappling with treaty interpretation or with border skirmishes.  He argues that one national government can prevent a local prejudice from inciting a war or conflict with another nation.  He also argues that one national government has more weight at the table than thirteen separate governments discussing foreign affairs with France, Great Britain, etc.

The current generation is talked about for its love of technology and “breaking down barriers.”  The idea of tech and the net leading to a decentralized society is now ingrained in the minds of most.  These technologies, as well as the fall of the centralized planning-leviathan known as the Soviet Union have painted a virtuous perspective of decentralization.

Jay finds merit in the consolidation and centralization of certain powers. 

Contemporary politics finds both parties arguing back and forth about centralization depending on the issue.  Republicans may point to greater economic regulation by Democrats in commercial pursuits as a vice.  Democrats point to recent federal efforts overriding state marijuana laws as a vice.  Both sides argue the anti-centralization perspective when it suits their purpose. 

 For readers of the blog, what are your opinions about the centralization of our foreign affairs in the State Department or any powers centralized in our federal government as opposed to the idea of fifty decentralized arenas making policy?