To prevent any branch of the government from gaining concentrated power, the framers of the Constitution designed the system of separated institutions. Since the time of Huey Long, the ability of the system to guard against such concentrations of power has evolved and improved, but this system is still insufficient to guard against the dangers of the concentration of political authority or the seizure of unencumbered political power by populist demagogues.
The constitutional system of separated institutions refers to the constitutional checks and balances by dividing the both the United States federal government and state governments into three branches: the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. The legislative
…show more content…
The first type of federalism employed by the United States government was dual federalism based on tenth amendment, which means that the states and the federal government each had distinct responsibilities, and the powers rarely overlapped. In 1945, the United States government employed a different system of federalism known as cooperative federalism. This new system allowed the responsibilities of the state and federal government to be intertwined, and gradually the state governments became dependent on the federal government. Eventually, the federal government gained greater political power, whereas the political power of state governments was weakened, which exhibited an increasing concentration of political authority. The states, therefore, suffered from greater risk of interventions of the federal government, which would be a type of danger imposed by an increasing concentration of political authority. The system of separated institutions were not able to guard against such danger because it only regulated the relationships among governmental branches within the state level or the federal level, rather than the relationship between the federal and state government. Also, analyses can be made to examine other types of political authority, and similar conclusions can …show more content…
When Huey Long served as the Governor of Louisiana, Franklin Roosevelt was the president of the United States. President Roosevelt was criticized for compromising the independence of judiciary as he sought to get the New Deal passed by the Supreme Court. This was the period of time when the President enjoyed greater power. Later in the twentieth century, however, the principle of separation of powers dominated many governmental decisions. For example, in 1952, the Supreme Court rejected President Truman’s attempt to operate the nation’s steel mills based on separation of powers. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act to subordinate the president to the constitutionally granted power of the Congress to declare war. Congress also passed Independent Counsel Act in 1978, which created the Office of Independent Counsel to investigate executive misconduct and report on impeachable offenses to the Congress. These acts were intended to keep executive power under control, based on separation of powers. Therefore, we can conclude that the ability of the system to guard against concentrations of power has improved since the time of Huey
In order to secure the protection of the people’s rights of freedom from the imprisonment of tyranny, a compound government was formed. Central and State government came together to form the compound government, which in other words means federalism. It is one of the many elements that make up the protection of freedom from tyranny, “Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people.” (Madison FP # 51) The states combined covered our need of protection, protection of the countries by the Central government and protection of the people by the States government. Also by joining themselves together, “The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” (Madison FP # 51)
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
Our Constitution establishes three branches of government and defines their very existence. The reason for the three branches is to separate the powers. The phrase “separation of powers” isn’t in the constitution, but it best explains the intention of the Constitution. It is essential that the assignment of lawmaking, enforcing and interpreting be spread out among the separated powers to ensure that all power doesn’t fall into the lap of one group, or even a power-hungry individual. The powers of which I’m speaking that were intentionally separated by way of the Constitution are the Legislative Branch, Executive Branch and finally, the Judicial Branch.
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.
...ny of a branch by setting controls on each branch set by the other branches. Fairly equalizing representation in Congress protected the power of small states overall while preserving that of larger states. However, the framers may have mistakenly given the power to prevent tyranny to the government, not the people. The framers crafted a delicate system, but one that focused on creating strong inter-governmental relations. Since the first Constitution was drafted, power slowly began shifting to the national government. If the branches wished to control more, it would not matter if they controlled each other because they would all move together. The focus on creating a government as far away as possible from despotic in a group of white, mostly wealthy, and educated landowners may have prevented the creation of the sort of tyranny-free system the people wished for.
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.
American politics is often defined by a continuing power conflict between the executive and the legislative branches of the government. This struggle for political power between the two stronger branches of the three is inherent in the Constitution, itself. The concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances ensure that the branches of government will remain in conflict and provide a balance that keeps the entire government under control. As it was first established, the executive branch was much smaller and weaker than as we know it today. Consequently, the legislative branch was unquestionably dominant. Over the course of history, the executive branch grew in both size and power to the point where it occasionally overtook the legislative and today rivals the legislative in a much closer political battle. Today both branches have major factors that contribute to their power, but on the whole the legislative remains the lastingly dominant branch.
Prior to the New Deal, the United States practiced the traditional interpretation of dual federalism. The two forms of government were sovereign and had different parts to play, in the life of the American citizen. Under the ‘expressed powers’, the national government was granted various roles. These were the powers to collect taxes, coinage, declaration of war and regulation of commerce. However, the national government’s role in the economy was limited to interstate commerce. The tenth amendment to the constitution reserved these powers to the state governments. This in effect ensured that the state governments controlled most aspects of the economy. Federal institutions were limited to ensuring and harmonizing cooperation, between different states, on economic matters.
The federal system is a very complex because it allocates responsibility to state and federal government. Our federal system is one which powers are divided by the central government and state government. They both act directly upon the citizens and must agree with constitutional changes. The division of power among the states and federal government is called federalism. In the past there have been smart president and leader that gave the federal government more power than the states. We have view our country shift powers among the states and central government.
Federalism or “federal” ties around a system of government. It controls armies, declares wars, coins money, and regulate trade between states and foreign nations, and treaties (Mrs, Crouse’s powerpoint pg:3 num:9). Specifically this was created to organize the powers that exist in the system of government so everything can be organized. It also divides the power among a central government and several regional governments (Mrs, Crouse’s powerpoint pg:2 num:8). More ever Since everything passes through one system it had to be divided into 3 sections: delegated powers, implied powers, and inherited powers.
The current state of federalism in the United States is of one of peril, plagued with recent Supreme Court rulings, current debates over the devolution of Federal powers, and variance in State governing. The United States has always been troubled with the role of the Federal government V. State government on numerous issues. Since around the time of the Great Depression, the federal government was charged with the taking care of the American public in many social and economic matters. Congress was then granted by the Supreme Court almost complete power in passing any sort by legislation by relating it somehow to the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause found in Section 8, Article I, United States Constitution, states that Congress may regulate any and all commerce between foreign nations and the states. Congress simply related almost all legislature in some way to intrastate commerce, therefore making the passing of their legislation constitutional. This system was greatly used by Congress for almost sixty years, when, in the late nineteen-eighties and early nineteen-nineties many individuals and special interests groups challenged the constitutionally of these laws passed by Congress using the Commerce Clause. In several cases, such as United States v. Lopez, Congress was dealt a powerful blow and the states seemed to gain an upper hand. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause by enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This, along with many other laws repealed by the Supreme Court, weakened Federal control and gave power back to the states, a grievous mistake in my opinion. This increased the strains on the role of federalism in the United States and once again brought up the question, who has the power to govern what? In addition to this, federalism has taken a frightful turn with the current debates of devolution, or returning power to the states. Many current Congressmen and citizens alike believe that states should have a greater level of sovereignty and that federal power should be weakened so as to strengthen state governments. In contrast, many others believe that the Federal government should be allowed more power. This and other conflicting ideas have lead to a constant strain on the abilities of the government to best carry out its duties.
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).
Federalism was selected as the most appealing system of government in 1787, primarily because of lack of feasible alternatives. Confederacy had been tried by the 13 states under the Articles of Confederation, and found to be lacking, in that it did not provide adequate cohesiveness between the individual nation-states. However, widespread loyalty to state government and identity prevented the adoption of a fully unitary system. Instead, founders chose federalism as a moderate option which could best meet the needs of a people desiring national unity, but demanding local representation and authority as well. Further consideration revealed the multiple benefits of a federalist system. Federalism provides a significant obstacle for absolutism. The various levels of government and their allotted capabilities provide firewalls against the rapid spread of extremism and radical political mutation. The national government has the ability to check such a transformation as it moves from state to state. Each comprises a separate entity, which can be influenced independently of its neighbors. On the flip side, if a certain political party is ousted from the national government, it is still likely to carry support on the state level, preventing ideological annihilation. Thus the capacity for tyranny is curbed no matter where it originates. Federalism supports union without destroying state identity. Issues can be debated on a state level, before they are addressed on a national scale. Local proceedings affect the position which state legislators take on a national scale. Not all states or parties must be in agreement on the national level, and the conclusions reached by individual states can be compared as they relate to the nation as a whole. With federalism, the results of policies enacted on a state level can be examined before being applied on a nationwide scale. This allows states the opportunity to pioneer reform and to take steps in desired directions ahead of the remainder of the country. Again, federalism provides a firewall affect, by limiting the destructive potential of original legislation. If the experiment goes awry, its negative impact is limited to the parent state. Successful enterprises can be readily inspected and adopted by other states as they see fit. Solutions to nationwide issues can be tested on the state level be...
One of the biggest threats to a thriving country is a tyrannical government. To prevent this, the Founders declared that the power of the government must be separated. This principle, the Separation of Powers, states that, to prevent tyranny, one governmental branch cannot have supremacy over the country. The power must be divided among three branches. These are the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. The Separation of Powers is of equal importance now as when the Constitution was written because it prevents tyranny.
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.