Federalism
The United States Government is beloved to all Americans, in the simple fact that all men are created equal and all men are given equal opportunity, to aspire to achieve success and make their dreams come true. Although the percentage of people who achieve all of their goals in life is fairly small, they have the freedom to chase them and America for the most part is a pretty content place. The “law of the land” that sets the standards for our rights and privileges is the U.S. Constitution.
As pretty and proper as the U.S. Constitution sounds, there has always been and always will be some conflicts and concerns about different laws and amendments and even values that make a part of the sacred text of America. One of the major conflicts when writing the Constitution was power. They weren’t sure what to do with it, or how to handle it. America was so big with all different states a having all different values. America was not one, it was thirteen individual states who each wanted a piece of the power.
This is where the idea of Federalism comes into play. The definition of Federalism goes as follows; Federalism is the philosophy that power should be divided between the central powers and all its constituents. In other words the power of the United States should not all be in the hands of the national government, each state should have a say in the way that they want their own state to run. Every state wants to progress in a different way, and every state wants to progress at a different speed. However when problems get to large for a single state run government to handle, the national (federal) government will proceed to step in and set forth the necessary measures to control the situation.
The founding fathers were quite concerned when writing the Constitution about what the breakdown of power should be. They did not want the central government to hold too much power like it had in England, but they needed a federal government stronger than the Articles of Confederation to keep the states together.
When reading the Constitution you see many examples of compromises between the power of the federal government and the power of the states. There are limits set on for states, limits set on Congress, and...
... middle of paper ...
...so the Senate was given the majority rule over any treaty that has been negotiated by the president. In order for the treaty to be ratified it must be done by at least a two-thirds vote by the Senate. This did also give the President a bit of power himself. He was now allowed the power to veto legislation.
In conclusion the idea of Federalism is both very prevalent and very necessary to the way America functions. It was ratified in 1781 and is still used as the law of the land to date. Every facet of life is largely based on compromise, whether it is a relationship both friend, family, and lover, or on the job, or even with yourself. Sometimes you just have to meet in the middle, and sometime somebody needs to have more power so everything works out for the best. That’s what Federalism is all about, balancing the power between the federal government and the states. The United States is not a dictatorship or run by tyranny, everyone including the normal citizens of America have the freedom to have a say and speak out about what’s best, however leaders are necessary. All this is covered in the Constitution under the laws and regulations of Federalism.
Many complaints focused on the lack of a bill of rights in the Constitution, stating the inalienable rights of an American citizen. In Thomas Jefferson’s Jefferson Writings (Doc. C), he states that no government is entitled to omit such an important part of a country’s makeup. The reason a constitution is made is to protect the rights the people fought for during the Revolution, not limit them. Another concern is the balance of power between social classes and the governmental branches, which was a big issue with the Articles of Confederation. Even with checks in place so no branch of government could become to powerful, there was always a risk. In the “Brutus” and “John DeWitt” papers (Doc. D) it states that this unbalance of power could lead, disastrously, to one group dominating over all others, most likely the aristocrats. Some people, such as Patrick Henry during his Speech to Virginia State Constitutional Ratification Convention (Doc. F) even became heatedly anti-federalist, stating that the Constitution endangered to sovereignty of the states entirely. But even with these various concerns and arguments, the Constitution was ratified by all thirteen states in
Republicanism brought change to America, but called into question was the way this change was brought to America. James Madison through the Virginia Plan proposed a republic nation. The formation of the Republican opposition in the 1790’s continued the legacy of the American Revolution. Even though a republican government meant everyone in America would be under the same government it took away the “individual” freedom they fought for in the revolution but this government is representative of the people. Madison had a vision of an “extended republic” that would include everyone, however he would need a lot of support in order to get this republic. “Over the course of 1790’s, Jefferson and Madison would help turn their objections to Hamilton's
Fahrenheit 451 was written during the fifties, a period of mass paranoia, war, and technological advancement. The paranoia in the fifties was due the fear of Communism at home. People were afraid that their best friends might be Communists. This is also portrayed in the book; you are not sure until the very end if some of the characters are friend or foe. Many inventions of the fifties have advanced mirrors in the book. One might think that the author was trying to express how those inventions would ultimately resulting in the dumbing down of society. The television was coming about in the fifties and the four screen TV's in the book hampered the thought process so people would not think.
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.
While we have a constitution that lays out our clear cut civil liberties and all the rights we possess, other countries chose to restrict those freedoms. Due to the many advantages the Constitution gives each American citizen, the US has been able to keep this document intact as long as they have while other countries have to constantly restructure their government principles. This stability leads to greater efficiency in our legislative process and a strong sense of national pride. For a nation filled with differences and mixed opinions, the Constitution is a perfect fit. It was written as unbiased as possible to ensure that it was not limiting anyone or anything, instead, giving each citizen the ability to keep their government in check and grant freedom to everyone. During the time the document was written was when the Colonist knew exactly what it felt like to live in a world of oppression and unjust government. As a result, Madison and the other leaders at the time made it a goal to put the power in the hands of the people and make freedom an utmost priority. With an Unbiased approach to government that gives no advantage to one group or another, and with amendments that only help citizens take control, the Constitution is what the early colonist left Europe and died
Fahrenheit 451 is very futuristic, firemen start fires rather than put them out like they do in our world today. As the story goes on Montags wife Mildred refers to the televison being her "family" when he ask her to turn it off. For intance they watch an extreme amount of TV on screens that fill up the whole wall. People stopped reading books and caring over time as the culture around them changed. And the "parlor walls" was all they wanted and needed to be entertained. In this society people do not think idependently or have actual conversations. Nor do they have interest in reading
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury portrays the world in where all books are condemned. The very act of reading is thought to disturb the balance of the social order because it causes people to think and this could lead to distrusting the authorities. In an effort to keep the people in order books have been replaced with four-wall TVs that produce a utopian “family” that compels everyone to become disconnected with reality.
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.
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 2000-2001, tobacco contributed 12% of the total excise revenue, with 90% of that being from cigarettes (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India, 2001). There are also 26 million direct and indirect employees of the tobacco industry, to get rid of the advertising would surely displace some from their jobs as sales would be affected by the lack of advertising and promotion. Even if those who are in favor of the ban argue that cigarettes only contributed 0.14% of India’s GDP, they cannot argue that banning advertising would result in many employees losing their jobs. It is also debated whether or not it is within the government’s right to place such a ban. The Canadian Supreme Court even stated, “The State seeks to control the thoughts, beliefs and behavior of its citizens along the line it considers acceptable. This form of paternalism is unacceptable in a free and democratic society.” (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India, 2001). Adult consumers are aware of the health risks and it is their choice to continue using tobacco products if they so wish. People are allowed to drink alcohol, which has health risks as well as the temporary impairment of judgment and rational thought, but it is legal and advertised; those in opposition of the ban question why one is being
Did the government have a right to save tobacco users from themselves? Additionally, the opponents characterized the government’s actions as acting like a nanny. The tobacco industry argues that their advertisement is solely for the purpose of educating the public about the differences in the brands so consumers could make educated and informed choices. Opponents also point to a survey conducted by the Indian Market Research Bureau where respondents stated they began smoking for reasons other than advertising. Additionally, opponents cite to research studies that found weak correlations between advertising and tobacco use. Furthermore, there was an increase in tobacco use in Finland following a ban on tobacco
.I believe that the Tobacco industry is unethical, They provide a product that causes addiction and eventual death if smoking continues thought the majority of a person’s life. I think that the tobacco industry needs to take more responsibility for their product. I believe they should do this by not advertising on the false image of being a cigarette smoker and focus on what consumers are actually going to receive for their money when purchasing cigarettes. They should focus on the feeling it gives people, and what the cigarette experience actually is in the most literal terms. Also cigarette companies should tell costumers upfront in easy to read labels the long term and short term effects of smoking to let people clearly know what they are buying and what it’s effects are.
Should tobacco and alcohol advertising be allowed on television? The ban on advertising tobacco is already in affect, however, alcohol is another harmful substance. Should liquor be allowed to be advertised, if tobacco can not advertise their product? The ban on advertising tobacco products on television and radio, was passed through legislation in 1970 by Richard Nixon. This argument like others out there has two sides, one side in favor these advertisements and the other against these advertisements. Since both of these substances are highly addictive and costly. Would we like to see these advertisements continued? Are these advertisements the hazard they are communicated to be? Through the research of these two important sides, this essay will explore which side has a stronger stance on the topic.
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.
It is not moral to torture the children through divorce. Every marriage have problems, but it is recommended that the couples should solve their problems with mutual understanding, both partners must understand one another and also learn to cope up their partners behavior. Itis possible to change the negative behaviors that you don’t like in your partners, and it better you try to change it rather than rush to divorce. Divorce should be the last option in finding a solution to marital