How Does a Constitutional Republic Absorb a Civilization-Scale Technology While Preserving Local Legitimacy?

For non-U.S. readers, this is a federalism question: in the United States, power is divided between the federal government in Washington and the states, and preemption means the federal government can sometimes block state-level rules.

On December 14, 1976, my father chaperoned my school class to see the Freedom Train when it came through town during the United States Bicentennial. I still remember that day clearly. One of the treasures onboard was George Washington’s copy of the Constitution. Fifty years later, as the U.S marks 250 years, we are still arguing over a constitutional question: how much power should Washington hold over decisions whose consequences land in local communities?

Washington increasingly frames AI as a national race tied to economics, defense, and global competition. The result is predictable: more centralized policy, more federal standards, and more pressure against state-level restrictions. But AI doesn’t arrive as an abstraction. It arrives physically: data centers consuming land, water, and electricity; AI systems entering schools; surveillance capabilities expanding; and local economies reshaping around automation and infrastructure demands. The consequences land locally first. States and communities are the ones absorbing the infrastructure, political tension, environmental costs, educational impacts, and cultural changes tied to AI deployment. That is where Washington should slow down.

Federal standards aren’t automatically unreasonable. National security systems, interstate commerce, procurement standards, and baseline safety frameworks all make sense at the federal level because AI infrastructure does not stop neatly at state borders, and some level of national coordination is probably unavoidable. But coordination isn’t the same thing as preemption.

The moment Washington begins preventing states from limiting AI deployment, mandating or restricting certain surveillance systems, forcing or blocking school adoption programs, or pushing back against local resistance to large-scale data center construction, the constitutional balance starts shifting. The people absorbing the physical, economic, and cultural consequences become separated from the authority making the decision.

AI should be governed much the way environmental laws are: federal baseline standards, with states free to impose stricter controls when local conditions demand it, not because that blocks progress, but because that is how federalism is supposed to work. That is why public process matters. Zoning boards, school boards, town councils, and state legislatures are not obstacles to progress. They are the places where residents can show up, object, support, question, demand conditions, and force decisions into public view. Some officials in that chain are elected directly and others are appointed locally, but the process still ties authority back to the people. It is where consent gets tested, and where elected officials get reminded who they answer to.

During a recent PBS special marking the nation’s 250th anniversary, Revolutionary Era researcher Katie Turner Getty, whose work I follow closely, discussed the original Dunlap broadside of the Declaration of Independence. One point stood out. Referring to the decision to print and distribute the Declaration, she explained: “They need to get it out to the public so that they know we’re doing this.” That principle still matters. Major technological and political shifts in the United States have historically required some form of public justification, public debate, and public consent. AI should not become the exception simply because it moves quickly or because its economic potential is enormous.

America was born from a fight over distant authority making local decisions without consent. That should matter when Washington talks about overriding state authority on AI. A population forced to absorb infrastructure it cannot meaningfully govern is no longer participating in technological adoption. It is being subjected to it.

Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Revolutionary Era researcher Katie Turner Getty, whose work and recent PBS appearance helped inspire part of the historical framing in this essay.
Website: https://allrevolutionarywar.com/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@AllRevolutionaryWar

References

Freedom Train: B&O Railroad Museum, “B&O Railroad Museum Begins Restoration of Historic AFT No. 1,” noting the American Freedom Train carried George Washington’s copy of the Constitution.
https://www.borail.org/bo-railroad-museum-begins-restoration-of-historic-aft-no-1/

Katie Turner Getty / Dunlap Broadside: PBS / ANTIQUES ROADSHOW, “Dunlap Declaration of Independence,” featuring Revolutionary Era researcher Katie Turner Getty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeycsAThdA

Federal preemption pressure: Executive Order, “Eliminating State Law Obstruction of National Artificial Intelligence Policy,” Dec. 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/

Consulting: Need independent analysis or security support? See AI & Cybersecurity Consulting.