What Are The Pros And Cons Of Federalism

1610 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Debate between federalist and anti-federalist

On may 25 , 1787 the constitutional convention begain at independence Hall in Philadelphia inorder to amend the Articles of Confederation . It was apparent to the framers of the Constitution that the Articles of Condeferations lacked central authority over foreign and comestic commerece threw many conflicts over time after the Revolutionary War . this wouldn’t be a harmonious amendment either . Between the federalists and the Anti – Federalist the spent the entire summer creating a new government unlike any before . Leaving no one happy proving their creation was fair . One of the biggest conflicts was the balancing of powers between the national and state powers in our feredal sytem (KTP 74).

The outcome of this conflicts is called Federalism …show more content…

Neither level acting alone can change the bacis dividion of powers the constitution makes between them .although it can get quite complicated the overall system is rather simple . Federalism allows for local and state government to make laws that pertain to their people after all who knows them better than the political figures that deal with them on a day to day basis . While the national government makes laws that are for the entire general public . This compromise can be seen in our day to day lives . We pay taxes to the national government who then distributes the money to the different states to support programs like welfare, maintanince on highways and education …show more content…

For example, there are national laws about gun rights and restrictions that all states must follow. However, Colorado also has laws that are more specific about what rights Colorado residents have concerning guns in Colorado, such as Colorado is the only state that doesn 't require a permit for handgun owners. No one part of the Constitution deals with federalism , rather the entire artifact is a list that divides the powers accordingly . Congress helps to make most of the laws passed by the national government showing that it’s the National Governments strongest asset. Article 1 Section 8 is the strongest list of powers of the National Government with in the Constitution . (76) . This list aided by a clause give Congress the power to make all laws that are “necessary and proper” This is called the Necessary and proper clause which has been used to justify powers Congress have given themselves which arent specifically mentioned within the Constitution.Another clause that works with this is The Surpremacy claus which basically states that National law is the law of the land showing that Federal law trumps State law . With these clauses it seems as though Federal law has all of the power , but Article I , Section 9 limits Federal law with a list of specific powers not granted to Congress (76) . As well as the Bill of Rights that limit the power the Federal Gov. has on indiviuals

Show More
Related

  • Unraveling the Failure of the Articles of Confederation

    653 Words  | 2 Pages

    In other words, the states will have all the powers that are not appointed to the national government, by the Articles of Confederation. According to Article 9, “The national congress will have the power to declare war, negotiate foreign treaties, settle disputes between states, regulate currency, direct the operations of land and naval forces, borrow money from the states.” (Williamsburg, 2009) An elaboration of this is that, the national government is limited to the powers, that are stated above, and has no control of anything else. Since the national government had little to no control over any of the states, laws that were past inside of these states became unjust and faced little repercussions from the national government, because of the limitations that were put into place by the articles of confederation.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of The Anti-Federalists

    835 Words  | 2 Pages

    On September 28, 1787 Confederation Congress sent out the draft of the Constitution. This was the first time in history for the people to debate, discuss, and decide with a vote for how they wanted to be governed. There were two groups that debated the thought of the Constitution. They were called Federalists and anti-Federalists.

    Read More

  • Articles Of Confederation Dbq Essay

    708 Words  | 2 Pages

    With these different balances to control the powers throughout the new government, the problem of tyranny wasn’t as such of a problem as it was when the Articles of Confederation were in place. The states were now represented justly, the national and state levels of government fairly empowered, and the three branches within the national government were balanced. Even the three branches within balanced each other out, so one wouldn’t become too under or over powered. The new government created by the Constitution was a good answer to protect against

    Read More

  • Articles Of Confederation Dbq Analysis

    841 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Strengths And Weaknesses Of The Anti-Federalists

    853 Words  | 2 Pages

    Eric Foner claims the definition of Federalism refers to the relationship between the national government and the states. Unlike the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation came with many weaknesses. Some provided by our powerpoint include that the Federal government had no power to make the states obey the Articles and laws that were passed by the legislature. The states also had the power to tax, and the opportunity to print their own money. Our powerpoint focuses on the $10 million Congress owed to other countries, as well as the $40 million it owed to the American veterans. The Constitution differed. Foner states that not only did the Constitution enhance national authority, but it also permitted Congress to levy taxes, conduct commerce, confirm war, deal with the foreign nations and Indians, and rent and help the “general welfare”. According to the powerpoint, Federalists focused on the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.

    Read More

  • Articles of Confederation Remedied by The Constitution

    1723 Words  | 4 Pages

    The year of 1776 was a time of revolution, independence, and patriotism. American colonists had severed their umbilical cord to the Mother Country and declared themselves “Free and Independent States”.1 The chains of monarchy had been thrown off and a new government was formed. Shying away from a totalitarian government, the Second Continental Congress drafted a document called the Articles of Confederation which established a loose union of the states. It was an attempt at self-government that ended in failure. The Articles of Confederation had many defects which included a weak central government that lacked the power to tax, regulate trade, required equal representation and a unanimous vote to amend the Articles, and had only a legislative branch. As a result the United States lacked respect from foreign countries. These flaws were so severe that a new government had to be drafted and as a result the Constitution was born. This document remedied the weak points of the federal government and created one that was strong and fair, yet still governed by the people.

    Read More

  • Anti-Federalist vs Federalist

    2017 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Factionalism in America

    1750 Words  | 4 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Essay On The Pros And Cons Of Federalism

    1162 Words  | 3 Pages

    Some of the advantages of having a federal government are that the national level of government can work on the bigger picture tasks while the state government solve the local and specific issues, so that each departments time can be used wisely and efficiently. Furthermore, if citizens took their everyday problems to the national level, then the national government would be over worked and the citizen might have to travel far to even reach the states capital. Each side of the

    Read More

  • The Power Struggle of the States and Federal Government in the United States

    1531 Words  | 4 Pages

    Theoretically, in a Federal system the sovereignty is shared between the national government and the local government but the ultimate sovereignty lies on the people. The federal government does not have the power to be involved in the states laws as they are only able to deal with national security, taxation and foreign affairs. The States however, deal with public welfare, education and justice. For instance, in different States there are different laws in executing criminals implemented as such in California death sentence is applied. However, it differs in practice whereby in the recent events the federal government is heavily involved in the public welfare especially when it dealt with major crises.

    Read More

  • Drafting the Constitution

    2555 Words  | 6 Pages

    By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.

    Read More

  • Democracy In The 19th Century

    1358 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Who Has the Power in the United States?

    1301 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...n our federal system has changed dramatically over the years. State governments have served as training grounds for national politicians and as laboratories in which new ideas can be tested. The Supreme Court, in its role as interpreter of the Constitution, has been a major player in the redefinition of our federal system. Increasingly, Congress has been guilty of undertaking areas traditionally reserved to the states and restricting authority to regulate these areas. Both federal and state politicians compete to address problems. Over the years, power in the federal system has flowed to the national government because tax money has flowed to there. With its financial resources, the federal government has been able to offer assistance to state and local governments and thereby, involve itself in just about every governmental function performed by these governments.

    Read More

  • Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government

    2619 Words  | 6 Pages

    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 ... ...

    Read More

  • Limited Government Essay

    1024 Words  | 3 Pages

    Then there is the state government which are responsible for governing affairs within their borders, and carrying out federal laws and programs at the state level. They are governed by their own constitutions and retain any rights that the U.S. Constitution does not exclusively grant to the federal government. The state government is limited as they cannot form alliances with other states and must honor and respect the laws and institutions of the other states. And finally there is the federal government which is the central and highest level of government in the U.S. It is divided into three branches and each branch has its own rights and power to check and balance the powers of each branch. The federal government has the power to regulate taxes, establish federal welfare programs and make laws in the interest of the nation as a whole. There are also limitations set to the federal government’s authority, as they cannot ask local law enforcements agencies to do minor administrative jobs. Although all levels of government have their own responsibilities there are limits to interfering with other governments

    Read More

More about What Are The Pros And Cons Of Federalism

Open Document