Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Critically analyze federalism in the United states
Critically analyze federalism in the United states
Critically analyze federalism in the United states
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Critically analyze federalism in the United states
The debate between a strong centralized government and strong state and local governments has been the topic of discussion since the beginning of the ratification of the constitution. Whether or not the Federalists were right about their opinion of a strong government or rather the Anti-federalists with their idea of strong, but small governments throughout our country are debatable. The constitution has evolved over the 228 years since the document was ratified, changing drastically between whether or not the idea was a valid decision. There has always been advantages between having either a strong or weak centralized government. These factors were all up to rather how the country itself would change. How society and technology would evolve …show more content…
Though there may be flaws with the idea of a Federalist country, it has stayed intact and secure in it’s own way. Could we have prevented most of the problems that have only occurred because of our centralized form of power? Idealy, yes, but that seems far out of our reach. There will always be contributing factors that will always need exceptions for the rule, but the form of federalism seems to be the better decision in the long run. Therefore, I believe that the Federalists were right, and that the form of government that allows more power to the nation as one allows more power to the people. Federalism may seem like a straightforward system that allows the government to coexist easily with the state 's power, yet there are intricate policies that seem to muddle the big picture. The government has certain powers that are only given to them as stated in the constitution. These enumerated powers, found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution set the authority of Congress. Congress can enact any powers granted in the constitution as long as it is subject to the individual rights laid out in the Bill of Rights. Yet the federal government …show more content…
Because of the economic and social differences between the North and the South, the government 's generalized system did not allow the separate ideas that accommodated both the north and the south. Therefore, Federalism seemed to be the key to the succession of the Southern states. The South chose a system as the Articles of the Confederation were organized, giving the states their own power to make and regulate the laws they saw fit to help their specific state. There will always be problem with a country with no central form of government, such as the different laws between the provinces. The Civil War and secession of the Southern states allowed for federalism to reestablish itself as the dominant form of government. Although it was the reason for the war in the first place, it came back stronger than ever afterwards and has been a major change than how it was before. Because the country was given the confidence it was needed, it seems as though it using and even abusing its power that it has been
Despite American government being characteristically dominated by cooperative feudalism, there is a persistence of national supremacy elements, state’s rights, and dual fideism. The current situation can, therefore, be regarded as balanced federalism. A cooperative relationship between state government and the national government is specifically rooted in a transfer of payments done from the national government to government in lower levels, which is referred to as fiscal feudalism (Bednar, 2009). There are mainly two types of grants which are block grants and categorical grants. This is a federal aid which is spent by states within a given policy area, although with much state discretion. General revenue sharing (GRS) was used back in the 1970s and 1980s. GRS awarded the state maximum control over policies, but gaining political support was difficult for them.
This passage places emphasis on one of the three arguments James Madison makes in Federalist 10. Madison explicates the deficit of factions specifically factions that could cause nothing but “mischief” for the United States. In this particular passage, he explains how factions are inevitable in our country, however, controlling the effect of factions would diminish their “mischievous impact.” Thus, prohibiting factions assists in reducing the probability of “[a] weaker party or an obnoxious individual” from gaining power over the minority. These smaller factions that Madison hopes to avoid are a direct result of “pure democracy” that he accounts as have “general[ly]…short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Therefore, this particular fragment from federalist 10 serves as the precedent to the introduction of a mixed Constitution of a democracy and republic, in this case, a large republic.
Thomas Jefferson believed that states could best govern the domestic matters within its state, but a strong Central Government is needed as well to deal with foreign affairs and to keep the country strong as a unified nation. "While smaller governments [states] are better adapted to the ordinary objects of society, larger confederations more effectively secure independence and the preservation of republican government."-Thomas Jefferson to the Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. What Thomas Jefferson was saying in this quote is that small governments like our state and our towns are the ones best fit to deal with the concerns of the people. In turn helping the people live the best and happiest lives possible. Which is the reason we have government.
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...
Even though there are pros and cons of federalism, this system of government makes America a free nation and separates us from many our nations.
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.
Contrary to what I believed in the past, the United States federal government retained and expanded their power and authority during the years of the Civil war along with the period of Reconstruction. Through drafts and monitored elections, they exercised this power during the Civil War. Then, as Reconstruction began, they initiated other methods of increasing their authority over the citizens. Military was placed in Southern states, by the federal government, in order to keep control over the rebellious people. Not only that, but, the idea of putting the federal government in charge of Reconstruction and rebuilding an entire nation gave them an enormous amount of power. Finally, the creation of the 14th and 15th Amendment were two more big achievements on the part of the government.
Most Federalist are elitist that own large amounts of land, educated and feel that they should govern to spare the republic from a democracy. Due to their education and experience with negotiations and treaties I feel that they are better suited to make decisions that will benefit the nation as a whole instead of each individual colony. With those in control that are educated and aware of the opportunities they can do what’s best for everyone by educating those that are unfamiliar with the opportunities that are available. A national government would strengthen the new nation as well as improve international trade for the benefit of all. This would not be possible with each colony being responsible for its own government without guidance. A strong national government relates to the economic development of the nation
Federalism is the powers a country has, divided between the state and federal government. Federalism was not included in the articles of confederation which left the states with all of the power. Federalism was chosen in the United States because the U.S. wanted there to be more control in the National Government. The U.S State government wanted to keep some of the power, so federalism was a good system of government to choose because they got to split the powers between them. Federalism has many benefits in California. Federalism helps California by giving the state power. Each state is going to have a different diversity in which each state can govern. If California wanted to, they could establish a policy of their own. They could see how well the policy went, according to other states that have established them.
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.
Why should we question our government? Why should we doubt the decision that was taken for the better of the people years ago? Before federalism was even considered did we not have an anti federalist government? Did we not try to make it work? If anti-federalism is for the better of the people why did we feel the need to question it? Why did we feel the need to change it? The answer to all of these questions is simple. Anti-federalism is not and will never be for the better of the states, but most importantly it’s not for the better of the people as a whole.
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.
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 conclusion Federalism is a big part of our country. Federalism does have its pros and cons but it’s safe to say that it has so far worked out fairly well. Still, we must keep in mind that federalism does affects our everyday lives and many times we take for granted that the individual in political parties will make the right decisions for the well-being of the public, though at times it is not always be the case. We must remember that for change to happen we must be involved and ready to learn and see and understand ways that we can make a difference, for at the end of the day it is our lives that are affected with every single decision that is made.
I believe that the advantages that Federalism provides far outweigh those of the anti-federalist movement. Our founding fathers wisely perceived that the idea of a centralized government was a big concern for abuse of power. Federalism represents many of the values of modern Democracy and grants individual states the power to make decisions that best suit their needs. Local government understands local issues better than a centralized government that often sees the nation as one big piece of land instead of smaller areas, each with distinct demographics and problems. For instance, issues concerning illegal immigration in Texas would be best handled by local authorities rather than by someone in Kansas, a non border state. By the same token, representatives of communities with different aspirations, ethnicity and cultures should be handled locally as the federal government might overlook the needs of these groups. One perfect example of the above mentioned scenario is the public school system. In a federalist system the local government decides what kind of schools will operate. Therefore, they might make better decisions when it comes to opening schools among large immigrant populations, perhaps creating a few bi-lingual schools to fulfill the population’s needs.