Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Brief note on federalism
Quick study of federalism essay
Constitutional interpretation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
he enduring debate is a book that was written by John J. Coleman. It outlines the issues and the existing readings in the history of American politics. The politics of America have been defined by a number of great articles from great philosophers. Some of the writers who wrote about the constitution in America include former presidents such as James Madison. Chapter 3 of the book talks about federalism. Federalism is a form of government that advocates for two or more units to contribute equally to the control of one geographical region. Federal government advocates for sharing of power between the central government and the other units of governance. The discussion below is the summary of the readings on federalism. 12 The federalists wrote a series of letters proving the worth …show more content…
of approving the constitution. According to Madison the new system of governance would foster the empowerment of the federal government to serve people in regards to their interests. In the writings, the federalists addressed the fears of an oppressed government that would interfere with the freedom of people (Coleman et al, 2011). 13 From the price federalism.
Paul Peterson wrote on the price of federalism. He weighed out options and the consequences of having a federal government. In this chapter, Peterson comes up with the description of two theories, the functional and the legislative. According to Peterson, the functional theory was positive and implied that the federal governments are tasked to perform their obligations fully to the people (Coleman et al, 2011). The legislative theory is brought forward as pessimist by arguing that leaders misuse their powers. Furthermore, Peterson recommends the incorporation of economic realities into policies for proper governance. 14 The framers design. According to Adler, the federal society has no power on the legalities and the policies that affect the general life of the citizens. In addition to that, Adler puts it forward that experts either take part in the societal events, multimedia presentations or the publications. Furthermore, Adler says that the opinion of an expert does not represent the opinion of others. According to Adler all citizens are equal and the constitution defines the basic rights that citizens should enjoy without compromise (Coleman et al, 2011).
15 Speech at Madison University. Thomas gave a speech at the Madison University in 2001. According to Madison, the success of the American state is attributed to the nature of the constitution to serve all the citizens without bias. Moreover, the spirit of safeguarding the human rights and the push for democracy is what has raised the economic and the political stands of America. 16 The half-full and the half-empty. According to Derthick’s article, “the blizzard of positions” constitutes education for all during the early stages, a ban on indecent attire and teacher assessment. Character education courses in schools to be and parent-teacher meeting to be introduced. Gore advocated for the Family and Medical Leave Act to allow parents attend the teacher-parent meetings during working time. This statement reveals the varying nature of the American federalism. It is described as being “long on change and short on fixed.” 17 Real life federalism. Kettle analyzes the impact of federalism and its successes in the real life. According to Kettl, the response of the
The U.S government has operated for about 200 years on the basis of Constitution written in 1787 and since then, there have been several debates as to whether the framing of this document was an elitist or democratic process. The framers, collectively were an elite, but the reason for why they wrote the Constitution is not fully known. John P. Roche suggests the Constitution was written upon the idea to establish an effective and controlled national government that would overcome the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and not so much to limit the power of popular majorities and protect their own property interests.
Within the pages of One United People: The Federalist Papers and the National Idea, author Ed Millican dissects not only The Federalist piece by piece, but scrutinizes numerous works of other authors in regards to the papers written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. As a result, a strong conclusion asserts that the motives of The Federalist was to create a sturdy nation-state but above all, that American polity is far more complex than pluralism and a free-market economy.
Since its very conception, the Constitution of the United States has while holding great reverence, been a great topic of debate amongst the political scholars left to analyze it in all its ambiguity. Two such scholars, John Roche and Charles Beard, in their analyses of the Constitution aim to tackle a layer of the uncertainty: how democratic the Framers truly intended the Constitution to be. John Roche speaks in unquestionably high regard of the Framers in advocating that they so evidently compromised their own values in order to create a democratic document that would strengthen the US as a whole. Charles Beard conversely insists that as the economic elite of their time, the Framers were influenced primarily by their private interests to
The responsibilities would include managing debt, creating national monetary and fiscal policies, as well as managing the national tensions that lead to crisis. Men like Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and John Adams, were in favor of the Constitution, supported the Bill of Rights and subsequently, a larger more powerful federal government. In their views for support of a federal government they proposed the Constitution and later added the first ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights (Lecture). While framing the Constitution issues taken into consideration were states boundaries, representation quotas and veto rights (Countryman 172). Two main plans were proposed to solve the plethora of issues facing the country – one by James Madison and one by Patterson. The fundamental differences was where the federal government derived their power. Patterson advocated for the federal to obtain their power from the states rather than the people, whereas Madison advocated for the power of the centralized government owing its power directly to the people (Countryman 178). After years back and forth conversations, a three tiered system was created that would ensure the integrity of the system by separation and complete independence from each other, thus listing specified duties and power allotted to the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary powers of the United States
From 1787-1790 the development of the American Constitution was a battle between two opposing political philosophies. America’s best political minds gathered in Philadelphia and other cities in the Northeast in order to find common ground in a governmental structure. The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists had both some political thoughts that agreed as well as some political thoughts that disagreed. However, both parties would compromise and ultimately come together.
While the government of the United States owes its existence to the contents and careful thought behind the Constitution, some attention must be given to the contributions of a series of essays called the Federalist Papers towards this same institution. Espousing the virtues of equal representation, these documents also promote the ideals of competent representation for the populace and were instrumental in addressing opposition to the ratification of the Constitution during the fledgling years of the United States. With further reflection, the Federalists, as these essays are called, may in turn owe their existence, in terms of their intellectual underpinnings, to the writings of the philosopher and teacher, Aristotle.
In John Leo’s “The Beauty of Argument”, Leo discusses how discussion and debate has changed drastically over time.
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.
Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a facti...
PRINCIPLES Federalism: "A political system in which ultimate authority is shared between a central government and state or regional governments. "1 The first and foremost principality addresses the power of the federal and state governments. The framers of the Constitution never meant for the federal government to grow to today's tremendous size.
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.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
In early American government there were two emerging political views that were blatantly obvious in the new states; federalists and anti-federalists. In this paper two main topics of interest for each of the parties will be discussed, the role that government should have according to the differing views and the subject of foreign policy.
The Great Debaters is a drama film/biography based on a true story of Melvin B. Tolson. The Great Debaters is a professor at Wiley College Texas inspiring to form the school’s first national debate team and then proceeding to challenge Harvard for the national championship. The Great Debaters has scenes that show what it’s like to be African - American in the 1930s. For example, on the bus Samantha the whites enjoy the front seat while the African - Americans are forced to sit in the back.This drama film/biography takes place in 1935 at a small historically black college in Marshall, Texas. The characters are Henry Lowe(Nate Parker), Samantha Booke(Jurnee Smollett - Bell), James Farmer(Denzel Whitaker), and Melvin B. Tolson(Denzel Washington).
Federalism is a legal concept that is centered around the concept that law is best handled as a two layered responsibility. Federalism is also built on a belief that sharing power with the local government is key to a successful governance. According to the text book, “the United States was the first nation to adopt federalism as its governing framework” (pg83). The following are a few examples of some advantages, as well as disadvantages of Federalism.