Every country has a particular system of government, a system that regulates the political spectrum of the nation as well as assuring the citizens’ needs and freedoms and managing the economic resources. Since the government is the stepping stone of the nation, it requires the appropriate system that establishes an anchored base of a strong country; there are three types of government systems: a unitary system, Federal system and a Confederate system. This paper will spot light on the last two systems by identifying their notions through United States and Canada, because regardless to their many similarities, there are significant distinctions in the ways they constructed their federalisms throughout history, in which they emphasized on the …show more content…
In a federation, the constitution is the framework of the nation; it is the only source of authority that determines how and when the power is shared, how to allocate duties, rights and responsibilities for both the central government and states, in order to limit the growth of tyranny. Therefore, the United States is an example of a successful federal government, because when the framers decided to turn into a federation, they had already an idea about the advantages and disadvantages of other systems of government, thus the American federal system was a mixture between the Unitary system in the sense that the national government is sovereign and the states are subordinate to it , and the Confederation in the sense that the states enjoy much of the power over the National government …show more content…
By the end, there was an agreement over adopting a federal government along with delegating responsibilities and powers to provincial authorities’ .But, as a federal system, Canada by contrast to United States had difficulties in distributing the power between the national, provincial governments and territorial governments, because only the first two entities enjoy the major power, and the other smaller entities have only those powers which are directed to them by the provincial government, the thing that made it increasingly decentralized to the point that it became the world’s most decentralized federal system in the world, so decentralization arise when there is a extensive sharing of authority, power, financial issues ,foreign affairs…etc between the different entities of the nation
If you drive to another state, the state that you drove to is required to honor your driver’s license. The states are also required to recognize any sort of official decision made by the courts in a different state
In comparing the Articles of Confederation with the U.S constitution that was produced by the federal convention in 1787, it is important to note that the U.S operated under both documents. During March 1, 1781, the Articles of Confederation went into effect when it was ratified by Maryland. However, the U.S constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation as soon as it was ratified on June 21, 1788 by New Hampshire. The main difference between the Articles of Confederations and the U.S Constitution is that the constitution didn’t force the laws, but established the why of the constitution. In establishing the why, it warranted the farmers to work on the government being better than the Articles of Confederations. They wanted the government
The Founding Fathers and Canada’s Founders both faced many obstacles and concerns when working towards creating the best possible form of government for their respectable nations. The Federalist Papers seek to counter the Articles of Confederation whereas Canada’s Founding Debates is a discussion between supporters and opponents of Confederation. Between the Founding Fathers and Canada’s Founders in the Founding Papers chapter Federal Union, there are many common concerns about the future of the country. When there is a change in how a country is structured, it brings concern over group rights and interest being ignored for the common good, and it is very
The issue of this paper is the argument between centralized and decentralized systems in the nation of Canada and which system should be put in place. In this paper, I shall focus on the concept of decentralization in reference to Canada and its politics. It shall distinguish decentralization in the sense of fiscal federalism, defined for this paper’s purpose as the interaction between the federal, provincial and municipal governments in reference to financial transfers for policy initiatives. This paper should also include the reference of nationalism and its impact on the nation and the benefit of using decentralization to find a common ground in a unified nation, this being said through the examples of french nationalism. Lastly the arguments used to associate the innovation of decentralization in smaller local governments and the consequences these governments will have on the issue of being equal. This paper will argue that the Canadian federation should be a decentralized system for the obvious advantages that it brings the nation; seen through economic benefits, public participation and multiculturalism.
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.
Frist, federalism is the division of power between the provinces and the federal government (Cutler 2010, 3). As well, Federal systems tend to be made up of multiple parts, which do not necessarily work together (Brock 2008, 3). There has been an increase on the study of federalism in recent years, which has created a more in-depth look at how federalism impacts the government. (Farfard Rocher 2009, 294). There are two aspects of federalism and both of them put limitations on the influence of the prime minister. The first is called political asymmetry; this encompasses the various attitudes of the different provinces such as the culture, economic, social and political conditions and how it shapes the relationship between the provincial and federal governments (Brock 2008, 4). This can create a problem for the federal government because it means that they may ha...
The anti-federalists thought that a strong central government was a bad idea. Their reasoning was that the extended territory of the United States made it too large for proper representation, for justice to occur. One quote of support is from the Centinel No. 1,“it becomes you to consider, whether such a government, however constructed, would be eligible in so extended a territory.” They concluded that the power should remain in the states except for foreign and general concerns.
The British North America Act went into effect July 1st, 1867 creating a union known as the Dominion of Canada, but this did not complete the debate on the Confederation issue. Many Nova Scotians continued their opposition to the idea and it would take considerable time before all Nova Scotians would accept the fact of Confederation. “These Nova Scotians, disgruntled at their treatment by Great Britain, found that their loyalty had markedly diminished. The more they considered taking over the responsibility for their own affairs from England, however, the greater trust they had to place in Confederation.”25 Confederation struck a balance between the rights of English and French speaking Canadians. Nevertheless, many divisions, conflicts, and debates would occur not only in Quebec but also in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick over this balance. Economic disparities between the Maritimes and the rest of Canada would also create many problems for the years following 1867. As a result, Confederation can be viewed as a beginning and not an end.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the thirteen colonies, or states, had a tremendous amount of control over their affairs, which many people wanted. Conversely, there were also many people who insisted on a strong national government that limited power to the colonies. A compromise was reached by the Founders of the new nation and what is known as the “federal system” was created which balanced the power between the federal, state and local gover...
According to the Federalists in the early stages of the American republic, a strong central government was necessary to provide uniform supervision to the states thus aiding in the preservation of the Union. This necessity for a more organized central government was a result of the ineffectiveness of the Article of Confederation’s government that was without a unifying government body. One component of this philosophy was the creation of an executive and other federal branche...
Canada’s parliamentary system is designed to preclude the formation of absolute power. Critics and followers of Canadian politics argue that the Prime Minister of Canada stands alone from the rest of the government. The powers vested in the prime minister, along with the persistent media attention given to the position, reinforce the Prime Minister of Canada’s superior role both in the House of Commons and in the public. The result has led to concerns regarding the power of the prime minister. Hugh Mellon argues that the prime minister of Canada is indeed too powerful. Mellon refers to the prime minister’s control over Canada a prime-ministerial government, where the prime minister encounters few constraints on the usage of his powers. Contrary to Mellon’s view, Paul Barker disagrees with the idea of a prime-ministerial government in Canada. Both perspectives bring up solid points, but the idea of a prime-ministerial government leading to too much power in the hands of the prime minister is an exaggeration. Canada is a country that is too large and complex to be dominated by a single individual. The reality is, the Prime Minister of Canada has limitations from several venues. The Canadian Prime Minister is restricted internally by his other ministers, externally by the other levels of government, the media and globalization.
The United States uses what we call dual Federalism, this is the idea that the Union and the state share power but, the Federal Governments has more power than the individual states. The American system uses one federal Government and 50 state governments. This has been nicknamed the layer cake federalism, since it is divided into state and federal jobs (study.com, pg 1). The period 1776 to 1997 is marked
Federalism is both an idea and a kind of system. As the ideology of federalism advocated a unified country, emphasis on a certain degree of concentration of power, in fact, is a kind of special forms of nationalism, its purpose is to establish a unified nation. As a national political organization form of federalism system refers to the political between centralization and the loose confederation of a kind of system. Under the federal system, the original internal affairs and diplomacy of autonomous state fusion in unified the country. Australia, Brazil and India is a federal country, while the United States has a federal system is the most lasting.
Federalism was selected as the most appealing system of government in 1787, primarily because of lack of feasible alternatives. Confederacy had been tried by the 13 states under the Articles of Confederation, and found to be lacking, in that it did not provide adequate cohesiveness between the individual nation-states. However, widespread loyalty to state government and identity prevented the adoption of a fully unitary system. Instead, founders chose federalism as a moderate option which could best meet the needs of a people desiring national unity, but demanding local representation and authority as well. Further consideration revealed the multiple benefits of a federalist system. Federalism provides a significant obstacle for absolutism. The various levels of government and their allotted capabilities provide firewalls against the rapid spread of extremism and radical political mutation. The national government has the ability to check such a transformation as it moves from state to state. Each comprises a separate entity, which can be influenced independently of its neighbors. On the flip side, if a certain political party is ousted from the national government, it is still likely to carry support on the state level, preventing ideological annihilation. Thus the capacity for tyranny is curbed no matter where it originates. Federalism supports union without destroying state identity. Issues can be debated on a state level, before they are addressed on a national scale. Local proceedings affect the position which state legislators take on a national scale. Not all states or parties must be in agreement on the national level, and the conclusions reached by individual states can be compared as they relate to the nation as a whole. With federalism, the results of policies enacted on a state level can be examined before being applied on a nationwide scale. This allows states the opportunity to pioneer reform and to take steps in desired directions ahead of the remainder of the country. Again, federalism provides a firewall affect, by limiting the destructive potential of original legislation. If the experiment goes awry, its negative impact is limited to the parent state. Successful enterprises can be readily inspected and adopted by other states as they see fit. Solutions to nationwide issues can be tested on the state level be...
Firstly, the federalism divides power between national and state government, which limits the authority of the national executive. Federalism gave powers to both central government and state government. Therefore, the possibility of dictator and tyranny is tiny. On the hand, the power of states cannot be too big as well, or it will harm the stability of a nation. Hence federal government has the essential power like coin money, make