SUMMARY — … However, the threat of biological attack–as distinct from chemical and nuclear attacks–has raised new concerns about our national security. … Preparation and surveillance are most critical to a threat of bioterrorism, and the only way to fulfill the Constitutional mandates is for the federal government to provide adequate national security. … Thus, bioterrorism has given rise to a new conflict with federalism where national security, the province of the federal government, becomes a matter of public health, an area traditionally regulated by the states. … But is there a legal mechanism to shift the long held powers of public safety from the states to the federal government in the case of bioterrorism? If each state elected to enact a uniform surveillance system which interfaces neatly with that of each and all of the other states, would this be sufficient to address the needs of a national security response and preclude the need for more invasive uses of federal powers into the area of public health? The specter of a national security threat led by 50 leaders with 50 different sets of priorities is not only foolish, but also a failure of the role of the federal government in the “continued existence” of the nation. …

Citation: Bioterrorism Preparation and Response Legislation – the Struggle to Protect States’ Sovereignty While Preserving National Security Federalism, Georgetown Pub. Pol. Rev. 6:2 (Spring 2001). Lead article in a volume featuring bioterrorism. Analysis of the issues of federalism challenging the federal and state governments in the emerging threat of bioterrorism attacks in a domestic context and how best to legislate and regulate within a U.S. constitutional framework. Intent of the framers is examined in an analysis of this topic.