The kind of emergency provisions as existed in the Indian Constitution are to be found in the U.S.A., Canada, and at sight may appear to be drastic and out of place in a democratic and federal country. But it is not entirely so if the matter is probed into somewhat deeply. Once viewed in the light of adjustments and developments which come about in other federations under the impact of an emergency like war when these federations undergo a kind of a silent metamorphis.
Federalism, says Dicey, is a weak government because of the distribution of powers between the Centre and the Units, but the wartime experiences of the U.S.A., Canada and in Australia have shown that this is not necessarily so and that a federation can very well stand the test of time. As Corwin has asserted, federalism as a system of counterpoise is no longer viable in the field of war making, and therefore there is incompability between the requirements of total war and principles thus far deemed to be fundamental to government under the Constitution. These federations have faced the emergency of two fold wars[1911-1914 and 1935-1945]. In the U.S.A. and Australia, the emergency was met by the Courts giving an expansive and liberal interpretation to the war or the defence power of the Centre and thus giving it a greater area of operation than its peace time ambit so as to do all things which are necessary for the safety of the Country, or the effective prosecution of war.
In Canada, the general power of the Centre was interpreted by the Courts broadly and so the Centre became more powerful during the war time than it would it would in the peace time.
During the war crisis, the Constitutions of the U.S.A, Canada and Australia functioned very differently from t...
... middle of paper ...
... Central Reserve Police to protect the Central Government property in these states have already been referred to.
To get over these problems, the 42nd amendment of the Constitution added a new provision, Article 256A into the Constitution enabling the Centre to deploy any armed forces of the Union, and any such force had to act subject to the control and directions of the Centre and not of the concerned state government.
Under Article 257A, the Centre could act without the concurrence of the concerned state Government. However, the law minister gave an assurance on the floor of Parliament that the power under Article 257A would be used only in exceptional situations and in consultation with the concerned state government. To give full affect to Article 257A, some changes were made in the legislative entries in three lists. A new entry 2A, was added to Lists 1 .
Mallory, J.R.. 1965. “The Five Faces of Federalism.” In P.A. Crepeau and C.B. Macpherson (eds.) The Future of Canadian Federalism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Section 2. “This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several St...
Rostow, Eugene V., "Great Cases Make Bad Law: The War Powers Act" (1972). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2143.
The Age of Federalism written by two highly skilled historians Stanley Elkins and Eric Mckitrick describes how the country advance from just an idea to a working republic. In different ways, this story is about the evolution of two party system. It is surprising how the political organizations quickly became an integral party of a democratic system, but they did this regardless of warnings against political factions by American leaders who was afraid for the diverse impact it may have on the emerging republic. This book was written in order to give an analytical survey of the nation’s crucial decade under the constitution. This book provides a historical account of political, military, economic, cultural and diplomatic problems that faced the new nation. These issues are examined in the book from different point of views. The authors conducted a well-organized research using hundreds of sources such as, government documents, US documents, statesman’s papers, doctoral dissertations and newspaper articles. This book attempts to explore the great figures that played a major role in shaping this remarkable era. The authors did this in order to know them better and accurately interpret their behaviors. The book reveals Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and Adams to be more complex, spirited and contradictory more than other
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...
The October Crisis of 1970 was the first time the War Measures Act was invoked during peacetime. This was the third and final use of the act, enacted in both of the world wars, before being later replaced by the less controversial Emergencies Act. In 1970 Canada’s strength as a nation was being tested by the conflict in Quebec, and this paper will examine why the use of the War Measures Act was justified through the conflict. Le Front du Liberation du Québec (FLQ) was a group of radicalized nationalists. Its members were named terrorists after they progressed to extremist measures including attempted kidnappings, and many bombings. The group had the intention to create an independent state of Quebec. As tensions rose the government realized
Compromise between the Federalist and anti-Federalist was reached through a series of decisions, in no small part assisted by the fact that those against strengthening the Federal government were not present, “the formidable talents who were opposed to the project of fortifying the...
After the victory over the British, each state had its own Constitution and Bill of Rights, but there were no centralized government. The Continental Government had a number of responsibilities that were not granted to them legitimately. They had created the Continental Army, printed money, managed trade, and dealt with the nation’s debt. They felt that they needed to legitimate their actions and realized that there was a need for a centralized government (Schultz, p115). In this report, I will compare and contrast the Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution of 1787, analyze the drafting of the Constitution and how the states compromised to draft it effectively, compare and contrast the debate over the ratification between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and evaluate the success of the Bill of Rights in achieving balance between national and states’ interests.
Federalism was initially defined as the arrangement of powers that came from the people. The powers were divided at the national and state level government. In America’s history, federalism began with the idea that people granted power to the states which then granted power to the national government. As a result, this produced a weak national government. To overcome this, U.S Constitution was created to build a powerful national government, but at the same time provided rights to the state and its people. Federalism provided a good structure of government for United States. It made it easier to run a country as big as United States by separating powers at different levels. With its strengths, the federal system came with its weaknesses. Over
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...
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...
Federal and state authority differs in order to protect us from any one governing body making all the decisions. This delegation of power seeks to prevent imbalance and helps to create equality. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely (Moreell, 2014)”. This famous saying perhaps portrays the resoning behind the division of power. The Federal g...
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
Nowadays, the legal order and the rule of law within the state system play a forefront role in the developed democracies. Undoubtedly, the notion of democratic state itself is closely associated with the high standards of legal system in it. However, in order to define what the high standards of legal system actually mean, it is important to answer the question what one would perceive as the real democracy. Although, we used to describe the democracy as the will or voice of majority in general terms, there are many more other factors of the modern democracies such as the separation of power, for instance. Based on this, we may assume that a constitution is a way of organizing all these into a single universal binding document to reach, and subsequently retain, those principles within a society. There is a broad concept that modern democracies cannot operate without a constitution to protect and implement democracy and legal rights of their citizens. On the opposite side, others insists that the constitution is absolutely useless since it is widely adopted in the numerous autocratic states, and used to retain the power and authority in hands of current government. Basically, those debates reflects the controversial nature of statecraft. My paperwork is intended to consider the role of the constitution and constitutional court in democratic society.
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.