Federalism may be described as a system of government that features a separation of powers and functions between the state and national governments. This system has been used since the very founding of the United States. The constitution defines a system of dual federalism, which ensures sovereignty of the state and national governments. This is put in place in order to limit the national government’s power. However, the Great Depression of 1929 greatly weakened the nation’s economic systems. President Roosevelt made many changes in the relationship between the national and state governments, thus revolutionizing our understanding of federalism, through the New Deal. This essay seeks to explore the changes and attributes that define post-New Deal federalism.
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.
During the Great Depression, many economic institutions failed. President FDR opted to forego economic ideas such as the market’s self-regulation. The national government was traditionally limited in it...
... middle of paper ...
...arisen in the form of unfunded mandates. The federal government has created national directives, but occasionally failed in providing the necessary funding. As a result, its power in cooperative federalism may be compromised as it is not keeping up its end of the bargain. States and local governments have been forced to shoulder the costs of these programs (Ginsberg and Lowi et al. 83). This may result into modifications of national directives to match local desires, which may negate the principles of this federalism. However, the program has been mostly successful. Alongside the New Deal, it assisted many Americans to regain employment. In essence, it has improved the outlook of the national economy since the 1930s.
Works Cited
Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore J Lowi and Margaret Weir. We the people. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005. Print.
In his book, A New Deal for the American People, Roger Biles analyzes the programs of the New Deal in regards to their impact on the American society as a whole. He discusses the successes and failures of the New Deal policy, and highlights the role it played in the forming of American history. He claims that the New Deal reform preserved the foundation of American federalism and represented the second American Revolution. Biles argues that despite its little reforms and un-revolutionary programs, the New Deal formed a very limited system with the creation of four stabilizers that helped to prevent another depression and balance the economy.
The thirteen states formed a Confederation referred to as the “league of friendship” in order to find a solution for common problems such as foreign affairs.The Articles of Confederation was the nation’s first Constitution. The articles created a loose Confederation of independent states that gave limited powers to the central government. Each state would have one vote in the house of Congress, no matter the size of the population. Members of the one-house Congress, such as Pennsylvania, agreed that the new government should be a unicameral legislature, without an executive branch or a separate judiciary. Under the articles, there wasn’t a strong independent executive. There wasn’t any judicial branch but Congress had the authority to arbitrate disputes between states. Congress was responsible for conducting foreign affairs, declaring war or peace, maintaining an army and navy and a variety of other lesser functions. But the articles denied Congress the power to collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce and enforce laws. Because of this, the central government had to request donations from the states to finance its operations and raise armed forces.
The Merits of the federal System is a discourse of Federalism: does the author think Federalism is a positive system? Why or why not:
The Great Depression was one of the greatest challenges that the United States faced during the twentieth century. It sidelined not only the economy of America, but also that of the entire world. The Depression was unlike anything that had been seen before. It was more prolonged and influential than any economic downturn in the history of the United States. The Depression struck fear in the government and the American people because it was so different. Calvin Coolidge even said, "In other periods of depression, it has always been possible to see some things which were solid and upon which you could base hope, but as I look about, I now see nothing to give ground to hope—nothing of man." People were scared and did not know what to do to address the looming economic crash. As a result of the Depression’s seriousness and severity, it took unconventional methods to fix the economy and get it going again. Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration had to think outside the box to fix the economy. The administration changed the role of the government in the lives of the people, the economy, and the world. As a result of the abnormal nature of the Depression, the FDR administration had to experiment with different programs and approaches to the issue, as stated by William Lloyd Garrison when he describes the new deal as both assisting and slowing the recovery. Some of the programs, such as the FDIC and works programs, were successful; however, others like the NIRA did little to address the economic issue. Additionally, the FDR administration also created a role for the federal government in the everyday lives of the American people by providing jobs through the works program and establishing the precedent of Social Security...
During the period 1800-1817, the Jeffersonians to a great extent compromised their political principles and essentially “out Federalized the Federalists”. While traditional Jeffersonian Republicanism advocated a strict interpretation of the Constitution and an emphasis on an agrarian economic system, the actual policies of Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were markedly different from their theoretical principles. This obvious compromise of Jeffersonian principles is evident in the Federal government’s assumption of broad-based political powers and institution of capitalistic Hamiltonian economic reforms, both of which stemmed from Jefferson and Madison’s adoption of broad constructionist policies.
Federalism plays an integral part in the growth and development of the United States of America and is a key factor in determining the basis of power in this country. Clearly, the term federalism can be understood in many different ways pertaining to each person's view, but it can be more broadly defined in terms of the separation between the state and federal government. Thomas E. Patterson defines federalism as, “the division of sovereignty, or ultimate governing authority, between a national government and regional (that is, state) governments. Each directly governs the people and derives its authority from them” (Patterson 74). He then goes on to give a more basic definition with, “American Federalism is basically a system of divided powers” (Patterson 74). But federalism is more than just a word with a definition. It is hard wired into the constitution because the framers knew how important this division of power would be for the development of America and to ensure power would ultimately reside with the people.
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.
The Great Depression was the worst period in the history of America’s economy. There is no way to overstate how tough this time was for the average worker and there was a feeling of desperation that hung over the entire country. Current political wisdom leading up to the Great Depression had been that the federal government does not get involved in business or the economy under any circumstances. Three Presidents in a row; Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover, all were cut from the same cloth of enacting pro-business policies to generate a powerful economy. Because the economy was doing so well during the “Roaring 20s”, there wasn’t much of a dispute
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...
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.
The New Deal period has generally - but not unanimously - been seen as a turning point in American politics, with the states relinquishing much of their autonomy, the President acquiring new authority and importance, and the role of government in citizens' lives increasing. The extent to which this was planned by the architect of the New Deal, Franklin D. Roosevelt, has been greatly contested, however. Yet, while it is instructive to note the limitations of Roosevelt's leadership, there is not much sense in the claims that the New Deal was haphazard, a jumble of expedient and populist schemes, or as W. Williams has put it, "undirected". FDR had a clear overarching vision of what he wanted to do to America, and was prepared to drive through the structural changes required to achieve this vision.
Brousek, Bob. The Impact of the New Deal on American History. Working paper no. HIST 8916. N.p.: n.p., 2013. Print.
The US government’s role in the Great Depression has been very controversy. Different hypothesizes argued differently on the causes of the Great depression and whether the New Deal introduced by the government and President Roosevelt helped United States got out of the depression. I would argue that even though not the only factor, the US government did lead the country into the Great Depression and the New Deal actually delayed the recovery process. I will discuss five different factors (stock market crash, bank failure, tariff and tax cut, consumer spending and agriculture) that are commonly accepted to cause the depression and how the government linked to them. Furthermore, I will try to show how the government prolonged the depression in the United States by introducing the New Deal.
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 spite of the prominence of the states in everyday life, the most demanding public policy questions former to the American Civil War involved discussions over the possibility of national power with most Americans believing it should remain partial. Yet federalism was still the center of political arguments. The Constitution did not report if states did nor did not reserve any remaining sovereignty in the powers given to the national government. The fact that the states were much more capable in accomplishing governmental purposes adequately t...