More handpicked essays just for you.
The tenth amendment essay
The relationship between the federal state and local government
Relationship between state and federal governments
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The tenth amendment essay
The division of power between the federal and state government shaped American history because it led to multiple challenges in the country and shaped how we work as a country today. Even today, The United States of America struggles with dividing power between the federal and the state governments, even though the Tenth Amendment clearly defines it. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This amendment states how each power should be divided. The Federal Government has all of the power that the Constitution gives them. All other powers are for the State Government and the people of that state. As a result of this amendment, decisions in our country have been impacted. …show more content…
Personal liberty laws are the first prime example of this theme in the United States. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 did not provide a trial by jury and was an act established by the federal government. Many people thought this act was unfair because equal rights were not given in this example. As a result, many states decided to ratify personal liberty laws. These laws countered the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. These liberties gave runaway slaves a fast and fair trial by jury. This connects to the central question because in this case, a law was passed by the federal government that gave slaves a huge disadvantage. Many states decided to put in these personal liberty laws to counter this act. A state can help out its people by putting these laws in. The federal government was able to ratify a law, but state governments could counter it with their own
Typically the most basic civil liberties are found in a country’s bill of rights and then that country passes amendments as needed in order to grow the peoples’ civil liberties, or shrink them if need be. Now, in the case of the United States the people are not “granted“ civil liberties by the...
“The law on the side of freedom is of great advantage only when there is power to make that law respected”. This quote comes from Fredrick Douglas’ book, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, written in 1845. Fredrick Douglas who was born into slavery in 1818 had no understanding of freedom. However, his words shed light on the state of our country from the time he made this statement, but can be traced back fifty-eight years earlier to when the Constitution was drafted and debated over by fifty-five delegates in an attempt to create a document to found the laws of a new country upon. However, to eradicate the antiquated and barbaric system of slaver would be a bold step to set the nation apart, but it would take a strong argument and a courageous move by someone or a group to abolish what had enslaved thousands of innocent people within the borders of America for centuries. There was an opportunity for the law to be written within the Constitution, which would support this freedom Fredrick Douglas alluded to. However, the power, which controlled this law, would as Douglas stated, “make that law respected”.
In Donald Robinson’s, Slavery in the Structure of the American Revolution, he eloquently articulates the original purpose of separation of power in the United States of America: to protect private interests and freedom. Considering that separation of power is viewed as a means to prevent a unitary and centralized government, the issue of slavery influenced the adoption of separation of power. While equality is a quintessential reflection of America, the power of states’ rights prevents states from being consistent with American values. In this paper, I will examine the principle concept of separation of power in the context of ensuring private interests, in particular, the institution of slavery and segregation. I will argue how decentralized political power fundamentally prevents unity within a nation because of its intent to protect the private interests in the United States of America.
The United States of America has engaged in the battle known as political polarization since before its foundation in 1776. From the uprising against the powerful British nation to the political issues of today, Americans continue to debate about proper ideology and attempt to choose a side that closely aligns with their personal beliefs. From decade to decade, Americans struggle to determine a proper course of action regarding the country as a whole and will often become divided on important issues. Conflicts between supporters of slavery and abolitionists, between agriculturalists and industrialists, and between industrial workers and capitalists have fueled the divide. At the Congressional level there tends to be a more prevalent display of polarization and is often the blame of Congress’ inefficiency. James Madison intentionally designed Congress to be inefficient by instating a bicameral legislation. Ambition would counter ambition and prevent majority tyranny. George Washington advised against political parties that would contribute to polarization and misrepresentation in his Farewell Address of 1796. Washington warns, “One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts.” Today, the struggle to increase power between political parties results in techniques to gain even the smallest marginal gains. To truly understand political polarization, we must examine data collected through a variety of means, the effects of rapidly changing technology, and observe what techniques are used to create such a polarized political system.
From the inception of the Constitution, there has always been a power struggle between the President and Congress. In the beginning, Madison and the Jeffersonians were placed in a gridlock with Hamilton and his school of political philosophy. Andrew Jackson fought to extend the powers of the President, then Congress spent 50 years fighting to repeal the powers of the Executive. Abraham Lincoln refined Jacksonian presidential politics, then Congress impeached his successor, Andrew Johnson, for fear of another quasi -- tyrannical President. Even today, a Congress, whose majority is of the same party as the President, fights 24 hours a day to check the power of President George W. Bush. But why, and how? Inherent Power Struggles Within the Constitution: Article I, Section I -- "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives" VS. Article II, Section I -- "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America" Article II, Section II -- "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States" - The Founders' ambiguous and contradicting language sets the stage for a power struggle between the Executive and the Legislative branches - Being that the Founders were political masterminds, they realized that unique circumstances would demand some deviations from the restraints that the Constitution places on both the Executive and the Legislature - Founders anticipated that during times of crisis', the nation would need ...
In my opinion, the relationship between the Federal government and the States is unclear whether which institution has the authority to implement legislations. The vagueness of the American constitution particularly in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution that quote ” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The ambiguous of the American Constitution may be the main cause of the over power of Federal government.
There is much debate in the United States whether or not there is polarization between our two dominate political parties. Presidential election results have shown that there is a division between the states; a battle between the Democratic blue states and the Republican red states. And what is striking is that the “colors” of these states do not change. Red stays red, and blue stays blue. Chapter 11 of Fault Lines gives differing views of polarization. James Wilson, a political science professor at Pepperdine University in California, suggests that polarization is indeed relevant in modern society and that it will eventually cause the downfall of America. On the contrast, Morris Fiorina, a political science professor at Stanford University, argues that polarization is nothing but a myth, something that Americans should not be concerned with. John Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic, gives insight on a driving force of polarization; the Tea Party Movement. Through this paper I will highlight the chief factors given by Wilson and Judis which contribute to polarization in the United States, and will consider what factors Fiorina may agree with.
The first inception of individual rights began with the founding fathers of the United States, who had a vision in which all citizens would have the right to live in this country without being discriminated based on race, gender, religion, or sexual preference (US Constitution, 2010). These are basic human rights for which many people lost their lives to protect as this country was formed. Nonetheless, today one lives in a society in which one must fight to continue to posses those rights once again. Similar to the rest of history, when there have many examples of individual rights were not protected.
The reason for much of this power is the principle of judicial review of the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government at both state and federal level against a written constitution and the power therefore to 'interpret' the constitution. The power of judicial review over the states is laid down in the supremacy clause of article III and the power of judicial review over the other two branches of the federal government is implied in the constitution and by several but by no means all of the founding fathers: "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of thei... ... middle of paper ... ...
Throughout American history, our civil liberties as American citizens have evolved immensely. For example, the first ten amendments in the U.S. Constitution are referred to as the “The Bill of Rights,” which contains some of the most cherished civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion. These civil liberties however, did not originally apply to state governments or institutions the state established. The Bill of Rights focused solely on what the national government could not do, allowing state governments to do whatever they wanted. For example, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire supported Congregationalist ministers with tax payer dollars for decades. After the Civil War, civil liberties expanded, because three new amendments were added: the Thirteenth, abolishing slavery, the Fourteenth, which redefined civil liberties and rights, and the Fifteenth, which allowed adult, male citizens to vote. The due process clause (contained in the Fourteenth Amendment) became one of the most important civil liberties, because it applied the language of the Fifth Amendment to state governments, proclaiming that they could not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....
As James Madison said, “The different governments will each control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” What James Madison is trying to say is that the central and state governments have enough power that they don’t control everything. The central government has enough power to help some of the country’s major needs, and the state government has enough power to help the state’s needs because the state’s needs may be more specific. From this, you may conclude, that dividing powers between the central and state governments prevents tyranny. The first guard against tyranny was Federalism, which means a system of government in which power is divided between a federal government and state government.
The Tenth Amendment of the United States of America gives power to the states, without specifically listing them. This amendment delegates powers into three groups. The first group, is the power of the national government which is given to the national government by the Constitution. These powers are not held by the states, and are strictly reserved for the national government. The Constitution also prohibits certain powers from the states, and these prohibited powers are listed throughout the document as well. The final powers are the reserved powers, which are all of the powers not listed in the Constitution that the state has the jurisdiction over. The Tenth Amendment helps to define and create the system of federalism that was created
The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution of 1787 by James Madison due to the problem with its predecessor, the Articles of Confederation. In Article 2 in the Articles of Confederation it states, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” With states having too much sovereignty this caused an issue. Madison was a Federalist and believed that the federal government should have some control over states, therefore, he proposed the 10th Amendment. By the constitution getting rid of state sovereignty it meant Anti-Federalists fearing the possibility of a federal government with unlimited power. However, the states were able to compromise and ratify the Constitution under the agreement that powers not stated on it are reserved to the states or to the people. The 10th Amendment overall gives clarification that federal power is limited and that states or the have control on the issues not stated on the constitution. However, not everyone agreed to the 10th amendment. It was seen as
In the United States of America, there are many different government systems. One particular government system that is not so positive is known as a divided government. Now according to the website SparkNotes a divided government is a type of government in which one party controls the presidency, while the other party is in charge of at least one house of Congress. Although in the past divided governments were rare, in the last forty-two years as of 2006 there have mostly been divided governments according to the website Cato Institute (Slivinski, 2006). As one can tell they are very common, but from my research do not seem very liked.
The United States has a federal constitution which constructs the fundamental principles of the nation. One of these principles is the 10th amendment, giving all powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. Like the federal constitution the role of state constitutions is to create a legal and political structure which to base the states government around. State constitutions also include a bill of rights or something similar to it, these outline rights guaranteed to citizens, along with restrictions on certain activates as long as they don’t violate the federal constitution. State constitutions tend to be much longer than the United States constitution. That is because all powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the state leaving a lot of power to be delegated. Most state constitutions include policy and how to handle specific issues related to the citizens of the state. States also have the issue of smaller governments that fall under their jurisdiction. State constitutions have to include provisions on creating and eliminating these local governments and what their functions, duties and responsibilities are.