Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Formation of the UN
Formation of the UN
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
What if the United States had decided to stay a unitary government instead of switching to a federalism type of government? What would our lives look like now, how would we act, or would there even be 50 states in the United States of America? The founding fathers declared their independence from a unitary government in England. Unitary government is a form of government that governs as a single structure, there is a central government that gives most or all of the orders. Many countries still fall under this form of government, it is something that hasn’t changed much over the passage of time. Unitary governments are like the king and parliament in most European countries, the orders come from the king and then are carried out by the local …show more content…
Different races need different things and have different mind sets, so a king or even parliament cannot know how to govern these areas without a representative from the area. “Large states cannot be run through unitary set-up for in unitary system the whole state powers are in the grip of central government that has no access to far-plunged rural areas.” (Farooq) Being able to govern and understand the people in your area is something that most kings or parliaments need to master to keep everything peachy …show more content…
Being able to have the local governments tell the national government what is happening in the area is something they need to know about. Unitary governments aren’t as personal as the local government can be, and they don’t really help the lower classes. Being able to have a federalism government is good for the United States because it protects the individual rights of the people better than the unitary government. Federalism also protects the citizens against destructive leaders, because of the checks and balances system we have in government it keeps all the branches of government equal and not one area will be the strongest. Another advantage is that the government is more responsive to the people’s needs and desires, with the United States being such a big country it would be hard for Obama to govern us in Utah the same way as people in New York are being governed. Being able have a choice is also an advantage of federalism, having a choice is a great American
With these different balances to control the powers throughout the new government, the problem of tyranny wasn’t as such of a problem as it was when the Articles of Confederation were in place. The states were now represented justly, the national and state levels of government fairly empowered, and the three branches within the national government were balanced. Even the three branches within balanced each other out, so one wouldn’t become too under or over powered. The new government created by the Constitution was a good answer to protect against
James Bryce, writes a quite cynical view of federalism in his paper. Though pointing out Federalism is useful in providing for expanding states and protecting against oligarchy while still fostering the creativity and flexibility of local governments with in which people can practice their civic responsibilities. With each positive point, Bryce follows it with a negative point, and even compares the some
With having thirteen independent states, each one of them would’ve had their own rules and probably join other forces. Some of the states may have even become conquered, which would eventually start a war amongst them. If the constitution had not been created, the government would have been able to do whatever it wanted without any consequences being made. I feel as though there would be no amendments and no laws, which would have left our country in serious trouble. Not having a constitution would have given several states the opportunity to create what we now call the United States. Without the power of the constitution, each state would make their own regulations regarding how laws should be seen and approached. This also mean that each state would have to make their own money, which we all know that money is the cause of all evil. Without a constitution, each state would also have to set up systems for patents, copyrights, piracy, and declaring war on other states. Simply, without the constitution, the United States as we know it to be today would not exist. Our country would become weak and eventually fall short to many bad rules and laws. To answer the second portion of this question, if the Articles of Confederation were in force our country would not be better when it comes to laws. The Articles of Confederation would make our country extremely weak considering the many factors of what made it fail. There would be no source of power given to Congress or the federal government, which would eventually cause huge problems. This would then raise problems in levying taxes and regulating trade throughout the U.S. Without having a source of power under the Articles of Confederation, enforcing laws would be difficult and hard to handle. The major weaknesses that would bring this country down are as
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.
Anti-federalism would give the states the last remaining piece of power they need and desire to bring America to the brink of destruction. Because of the differences between each and every state anti-federalism would not work. Every state would have such different opinions that they would clash against each other simply because the neighboring state wouldn’t have the same opinion and or solution. It would cause havoc and
Federalism is the powers a country has, divided between the state and federal government. Federalism was not included in the articles of confederation which left the states with all of the power. Federalism was chosen in the United States because the U.S. wanted there to be more control in the National Government. The U.S State government wanted to keep some of the power, so federalism was a good system of government to choose because they got to split the powers between them. Federalism has many benefits in California. Federalism helps California by giving the state power. Each state is going to have a different diversity in which each state can govern. If California wanted to, they could establish a policy of their own. They could see how well the policy went, according to other states that have established them.
The Founding Fathers had multiple reasons on why they created a federalist government, the main reasons were avoiding a tyranny, more people participating in politics, and “experimenting” the states in order to find new government ideas and programs James Madison stated the Federalist Papers, The Federalist, No. 10, If "factious leaders kindle a flame within their particular states," the national, or federal government, can "conflagration through the other states." Federalism and the 10th amendment prevents one to take control of a state or the federal government, avoiding tyranny. The idea of having more people evolved in government came from the ideals of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson believed having both local (state) and national (federal) officials would increase participation in government.The last concept with using states as “experiments” comes from this concept: let us say that a state disastrous new policy, it would not be a disaster for everyone. In contrast, if one state 's new programs or policies work well, other states can adopt them to their own
Some of the advantages of having a federal government are that the national level of government can work on the bigger picture tasks while the state government solve the local and specific issues, so that each departments time can be used wisely and efficiently. Furthermore, if citizens took their everyday problems to the national level, then the national government would be over worked and the citizen might have to travel far to even reach the states capital. Each side of the
To define the terminology of federalism to a simplistic way is the sharing of sovereignty between the national government and the local government. It is often described as the dual sovereignty of governments between the national and the local to exert power in the political system. In the US it is often been justified as one of the first to introduce federalism by the ‘founding fathers’ which were developed in order to escape from the overpowered central government. However, federalism in the United States is hitherto uncertain where the power lies in the contemporary political system. In this essay I will outline and explain how power relationship alternates between states and federal government. Moreover I will also discuss my perspective by weighing the evidence based upon resources. Based on these resources, it will aid me to evaluate the recent development in the federal-state relationship.
When the constitution of the United States was formed, the framers specifically designed the American Government structure to have checks and balances and democracy. To avoid autocracy the President was give power to preside over the executive branch of the government and as commander –in –chief, in which a clause was put into place to give the president the power to appeal any sudden attacks against America, without waiting for a vote from congress. While the president presides over the executive branch there has been ongoing debate over the role of the president in regards to foreign policy. Should foreign policy issues be an executive function by the president or should congress play a much greater role? With the sluggishness of our democracy, foreign policy issues most times need quicker response compared to how domestic policy is decided in the United States. Many believe to maintain openness and democracy both the president and congress need to agree on how the United States handles issue abroad. Although the president has been given much power, his or her power and decisions are sometimes limited based on decisions by congress and challenged and shaped by various bureaucracies throughout the government system. I shall discuss the Presidents role and the role of governmental bureaucracies (Department of Defense, Department of State and the National Security Council) that work together and sometimes not together to shape and implement American foreign Policy.
Most Federalist are elitist that own large amounts of land, educated and feel that they should govern to spare the republic from a democracy. Due to their education and experience with negotiations and treaties I feel that they are better suited to make decisions that will benefit the nation as a whole instead of each individual colony. With those in control that are educated and aware of the opportunities they can do what’s best for everyone by educating those that are unfamiliar with the opportunities that are available. A national government would strengthen the new nation as well as improve international trade for the benefit of all. This would not be possible with each colony being responsible for its own government without guidance. A strong national government relates to the economic development of the nation
Separation of powers is the separation of branches under the constitution by the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. Federalism is a government system that includes the national government, which shares sovereign powers with fifty state governments.
Federalism, by definition, is the division of government authority between at least two levels of government. In the United States, authority is divided between the state and national government. “Advocates of a strong federal system believe that the state and local governments do not have the sophistication to deal with the major problems facing the country” (Encarta.com).
In conclusion Federalism is a big part of our country. Federalism does have its pros and cons but it’s safe to say that it has so far worked out fairly well. Still, we must keep in mind that federalism does affects our everyday lives and many times we take for granted that the individual in political parties will make the right decisions for the well-being of the public, though at times it is not always be the case. We must remember that for change to happen we must be involved and ready to learn and see and understand ways that we can make a difference, for at the end of the day it is our lives that are affected with every single decision that is made.
I believe that the advantages that Federalism provides far outweigh those of the anti-federalist movement. Our founding fathers wisely perceived that the idea of a centralized government was a big concern for abuse of power. Federalism represents many of the values of modern Democracy and grants individual states the power to make decisions that best suit their needs. Local government understands local issues better than a centralized government that often sees the nation as one big piece of land instead of smaller areas, each with distinct demographics and problems. For instance, issues concerning illegal immigration in Texas would be best handled by local authorities rather than by someone in Kansas, a non border state. By the same token, representatives of communities with different aspirations, ethnicity and cultures should be handled locally as the federal government might overlook the needs of these groups. One perfect example of the above mentioned scenario is the public school system. In a federalist system the local government decides what kind of schools will operate. Therefore, they might make better decisions when it comes to opening schools among large immigrant populations, perhaps creating a few bi-lingual schools to fulfill the population’s needs.