The Advantages of Federalism 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... ... middle of paper ... ...rrorists This bill has many points in common with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the Smith Act of 1950, the McCarren Act of 1950, and the Executive Order of Feb.19, 1942 that led to War Relocation Authority. Each one of these actions were taken when fear controlled the public and an agenda controlled the people in authority. Thankfully, the American people have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to bring them back from the edge, and to force those in positions of responsibility to accountability. The responsibility of government lies with the governed. If the American people react to trying situations and events in fear, then a general malaise and sense of helplessness will permeate the collective American consciousness. The abdication of personal responsibility erodes liberty, creating an atmosphere of dependency, that leads to bigger government and its pseudo security. Edward Livingston's statement, "If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist," serves as a timely warning to Americans today.
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within its branches and in comparison to the public, and trepidation that the voice of the people would not be heard within the government.
This bill was created to give the right for police officers to stop individuals that might be an immigrant, and ask for documents that state they are a U. S. citizen or legal resident. Which I certainly believe is racial profiling because to identify whether someone is a legal resident or not, someone will need to look at the racial aspect of the person. In fact, this is what is happening: police officers will not be on the lookout for people with a hijab or Japanese; they will be targeting Spanish-speaking individuals. With that said, what did those aliens do wrong? Are these aliens being stopped or arrested because of a law offense or because of the racial aspect?
States over the years have argued over state government and the federal government and the Article of Confederation was a perfect example how the state government does not work. In Document D Maryland questions the authority of the federal government to incorporate a bank. During the McCulloch v. Maryland case Maryland attempted to tax the bank. Maryland got overruled and didn't get their way. Still it serves as a good example of sectionalism where states are thinking only for themselves and not for the good of the nation. Thomas Jefferson in Document F also claimed that the Missouri Compromise will be divide the United States and obliterate unity. This claim is true considering now that the North and South now compete for more free and slave states. In order for Missouri to become a slave state Maine had to become independent again showing signs of sectionalism the North vs. the South. Signs of nationalism although are seen in Document H. John Q. Adams wrote in his diary about the Monroe Doctrine which warns the Holy Alliance to stay out of the Caribbean and Americas claiming they were the defenders of democracy. The United States did not have the army to back up this bold statement but it was still a bold sign of nationalism and did this for the purpose of controlling commerce in this region and improving the state of the economy.
According to the Federalists in the early stages of the American republic, a strong central government was necessary to provide uniform supervision to the states thus aiding in the preservation of the Union. This necessity for a more organized central government was a result of the ineffectiveness of the Article of Confederation’s government that was without a unifying government body. One component of this philosophy was the creation of an executive and other federal branche...
The federalists view saw the republicans view as a weakness. They insisted on a stronger common government. The federalists had an understanding that there could only be one sovereign in a political system, one final authority that everyone must obey and no one can appeal. They thought this was the only effective way in creating an effective central government. The independent states seemed to think it was clear that each one of them were independently sovereign, although based on history only small countries were suitable for the republican government. With history proving the republicans wrong for trying to create a republican government in the states the federalists were slowly trying to create a stronger central government. There first step was making the sovereign states agree to the Articles of Confederation which established a close alliance of independent states. The federalist central government was referred to as a “confederacy”.
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
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...
Even though there are pros and cons of federalism, this system of government makes America a free nation and separates us from many our nations.
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.
For over ten years, efforts to make changes to the United States immigration system have been put aside due to wars, attacks within our homeland and even worldwide financial crisis but it seems as though this being brought up more and more often. The history of the US immigration policy was more concerned with immigration enforcement over immigration reform. It was not until a few years ago that the US citizens voted they were tired of enforcement-only immigration policies and the pain they caused on immigrant families. So most feel now is the time to draw up new immigration laws that reflect American values and beliefs, and it ne...
The bill was debated and negotiated for nearly six years in Congress, and finally passed amid unusual circumstances. Several times in the legislative process the bill had appeared to have failed, but each time was saved when a couple of Congressmen and Senators switched positions on the bill. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives early on June 25, 2003 as H.R. 1, sponsored by Speak Dennis Hastert. All that day and the next the bill was debated, and it was apparent that the bill would be very divisive. In June 27, a floor vote was taken. After the initial electronic vote, the count stood at 214 yeses an...
When a case advances to the Supreme Court, the court asks a strange question: Is the law constitutional? The court is not overly concerned with the morality of the law. Admittedly, ethics are always a consideration, but when the time comes to make a ruling, the court bases its decision chiefly on Constitutionality. Amazingly, two hundred years after its conception, citizens of the United States remain fixated on the Constitution as the foundation of their society. And this happens on both sides of the aisle, on one side conservatives claim the second amendment provides them with a constitutional right to own an AK-47, while on the other, liberals argue that net neutrality protects their right to the freedom of speech. However, if the framers
Even before the Constitution was ratified, strong argument were made by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison in the Federalist Papers urging the inclusion of a federal form of government to replace the failed confederation. In Federalist Paper No. 9 Hamilton states, “This form of government is a convention by which several smaller states agree to become members of a large one, which they intend to form. It is s kind of assemblage of societies that constitutes a new one, capable of increasing, by means of new associations, until they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of a united body” (Usinfo.state.gov). The people of the United States needed a central government that was capable of holding certain powers over the states.
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.
Overall, the benefits of the federalism far exceed the anti-federalist movement’s causes. Federalism provides a much more organized and uniform government and promotes harmony between states and the central government by allowing them to work together. Sharing the burden between both federal and state authorities allows each governing body to handle their respective priorities more efficiently while at the same time sharing power to avoid having one ruling body that has so much power and opportunity to become tyrannical. I believe that if the founding fathers were alive they very day, they would pat each other in the back and acknowledge the progress that has been made.