When James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay drafted the Federalist Papers to persuade the state of New York to ratify the newly drafted United States Constitution, they could never have envisioned the controversy that the political theory of Federalism would generate, and the subsequent evolution of federalism that would follow. The Framers of the Constitution never planned for the federal government to be directly involved with the general welfare of people living within the United States beyond ensuring for a national defense and the creation of a national economy (Wills, 1982). As debatable as this issue was in 1787 and 1788, the subject is still controversial today, and has spawned political factions that have called for a return to those Constitutional fundamentals grounded in federalism. In his introduction for the Federalist Papers, Wills (1982) defined federalism as a basic political tenet of the United States Constitution which recognized that the post-Revolutionary colonies could best be governed by a mix of local and central government decision-making. Today, states are called upon to address issues of social welfare such as abortion, gay marriage and public housing; yet, federal agencies and federal dollars are caught in the political crosshairs for legislative resolution to these issues. This essay will examine this evolution of Federalism and discuss the significance of it, as it relates to the current state of intergovernmental relations for public agencies involved in housing. Structure of Federalism The American concept of federalism implies balance. Consequently, a system of checks and balances created by a division of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the national gover... ... middle of paper ... ...pers/Inman.pdf Nathan, R. P. (2006, September 2). Updating theories of American federalism. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Retrieved June 20, 2011 from http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/federalism/2006-09-02-updating_theories_of_american_federalism.pdf Nivola, P. S. (2007, July). Rediscovering federalism. Issues in Governance Studies, 8, 1-18. Retrieved June 20, 2011 from http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/nivola/20070709.pdf Quigley, J. M. (2002, April 3). A decent home: Housing policy in perspective, (pp. 53-99). Berkley, CA. University of California, Berkley Program on Housing and Urban Policy. Retrieved June 20, 2011 from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8f57x42q Wills, G. (Ed.). (1982). Introduction. The Federalist papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. (pp. vii – xxiv). New York: Bantam.
Paul Peterson wrote on the price of federalism. He weighed out options and the consequences of having a federal government. In this chapter, Peterson comes up with the description of two theories, the functional and the legislative. According to Peterson, the functional theory was positive and implied that the federal governments are tasked to perform their obligations fully to the people (Coleman et al, 2011). The legislative theory is brought forward as pessimist by arguing that leaders misuse their powers. Furthermore, Peterson recommends the incorporation of economic realities into policies for proper governance.
While the government of the United States owes its existence to the contents and careful thought behind the Constitution, some attention must be given to the contributions of a series of essays called the Federalist Papers towards this same institution. Espousing the virtues of equal representation, these documents also promote the ideals of competent representation for the populace and were instrumental in addressing opposition to the ratification of the Constitution during the fledgling years of the United States. With further reflection, the Federalists, as these essays are called, may in turn owe their existence, in terms of their intellectual underpinnings, to the writings of the philosopher and teacher, Aristotle.
When discussing the new science of politics laid out in the Federalist papers, it is imperative to understand that proponents of the Constitution had various reasons for writing these papers, not the least of which was convincing critics that a strong central government that would not oppress but actually protect individual freedoms as well as encouraging the state of New York to agree to ratify the Constitution.
On January 16th, 1788, James Madison published the famous federalist’s papers known as “The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles”. In those pages of work, Madison first begins by defining what a republican form of government should be. This last should be a government that derives all its powers directly or indirectly, either or both ways, from the great body of the people. Second, it should be administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period or during good behavior. He follows by answering critics concerning whether the proposed plan was federal or national, which was, a confederacy of States or a consolidation of states. Madison gives an explanation of how to determine if the character of the proposed government is federal or national. Using three objects; what was the foundation of its establishment, what were the sources of its powers and the operation and extent of them and by what authority were future changes to be m...
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.
Federalism could be portrayed in three general ways, unitary, con-elected, or a hybrid of the two (Bardes, Shelley II, & Schmidt, 2011). In the United States, we like a cream between unitary and con-chose schemas, which we insinuate as a chose skeleton. To better like our system we ought to first assess interchange sorts. An unitary skeleton is described as a system in which general force is controlled by a robust central government (Bardes, Shelley II, & Schmidt, 2011). The con-chose model embodies an assembly of free states with extensive powers united with an obliged controlled central government much like the European Union or the Articles of Confederation America (Bardes, Shelley II, & Schmidt, 2011).
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.
The debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists before the ratification of the United States Constitution centered around a number of controversial issues such as equal representation of the people, defense from the majority, and the balance of power between the states and the national governments. Federalist and Anti-Federalist Number 10 discuss the concerns with factions, their role in government, and how much power they should wield. While both suggest that large, clashing factions are detrimental to the United States, Federalist No. 10 promises that the government can protect from and reduce the growth of factions, and Anti-Federalist No. 10 argues for balancing of many larger groups, claiming that total lack of conflict in opinions leads to tyranny. While both papers make excellent points, Federalist No. 10 is more applicable to modern issues, although society does not fully follow its ideas either.
Wilson, James Q., and John J. DiIulio, Jr. American Government. Ninth ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000. Print.
Elliot Bulmer discusses “potential disadvantages of federalism” in terms of, “Duplication of work and lack of cohesion, additional operating costs, increasing regional discrepancies of wealth, resources and outcomes, harmful economic competition between subnational units, judicialization of politics, potential exclusion of minorities, the strengthening of local elites who misuse power, ineffective governance because of lack of capacity and instability and threats to democracy”.
Edward III, G., Wattenberg, M., & Lineberry, R. (2006). Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy (12th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Compare and contrast the ways in which housing inequalities are discussed from the perspectives of social policy and criminology, and economics (TMA 02)
The Housing Act of 1954, like its earlier predecessor sought to end urban blight; however, where past legislation left off, this new amendment provided an opportunity to clear areas that could be considered slums in the future. As before, this bill sought to help minority groups who, according to Dwight D. Eisenhower, “had the least opportunity of all our citizens to live in good homes.” Unfortunately, it fell short. Davis McGuire cites the legislation’s shortsightedness to involve the federal government, distributing much of the power on a state and local
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.
Elkins, Stanley and Mckitrick, Eric. The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788-1800. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.