The United States of America was founded on principles lain spelled in the Constitution. There is a common belief today that this document came about naturally, but that is not quite true. Federalists, who push for a larger and more powerful federal government, have been debating their anti-federalist counterpart since before the Constitution was created. Federalism, by definition, is the relationship between the state and federal governments within the United States. Federalism today has become problematic for America because it does not abide by Constitutional values, it does not serve those being governed, and it creates a muddled view of the rights held by the state and federal governments. We must look back at the original documents that …show more content…
One of the downfalls of a large federal government is that, "Wealthier, and better educated people tend to vote more often, participate more in political activities, and donate more money to causes than poorer, less educated people."(Paletz) The difference in levels of participation is related to the feeling that one is unable to have an impact without donations. A system of more localized State governments that followed the constitution would remedy this because people would be more motivated to vote on issues that impact them specifically at a local level. Their vote would also mathematically mean a much larger percentage than their vote in a national election. While getting people more involved with politics is an important benefit of this system, it would also allow State governments to cater specifically to the populations that they are governing instead of relying on a universal federal policy to do that for them. The more local policies could be implemented without as much overhead cost because it would not need to be applied at a federal level. Giving states their intended rights also benefits citizens by allowing them to move states if there is a policy that they vehemontly disagree …show more content…
This system of competitive federalism has led to corruption and a loss of individual rights. The federal government was never meant to act as more than a coalition between the states. The medical marijuana laws do a great job outlining the dangers that this system sets forth. The laws in Washington currently state that recreational marijuana is legal. The federal government, overstepping their bounds, has created federal laws that they may selectively enforce. This is dangerous because it can be used as a way to inhibit ideas that do not match those of the people who are in power. A very real example of this happened quite recently when the IRS was investigated for specifically targeting known conservatives for audits during the Obama administration(Judicial Watch). The IRS is able to do this because they operate under the 4000 page internal revenue system combined with additional laws created by congress totaling 80,000 pages. Because there is no possible way one could follow every single regulation set forth, those in power are free to selectively enforce tax laws upon those that they choose. Looking further into this fact, I found the 2005-2009 IRS mission statement generously repeats the fact that the federal income tax operates under a system of voluntary compliance(A Novel Strategic Plan). The most
The unpredictable failure of the Articles of Confederation to the continental congress was a huge problem. The Articles of Confederation was made so the states would have more power, And limit the powers of the national government. Main contributors for this action was the fear that the national government will gain too much power and overstep its authority.This would have a negative effect on the nation, because tensions will start to rise for the ineffectiveness of this new system of government. A Rebellion best known as Shays rebellion, took place shortly after The adoption of the Articles of Confederation. The states, in which shays rebellion has taken place, were becoming unjust/unfair the way in which the state collected taxes. Since the Articles of Confederation was a complete failure
Federalism is the federal principle or system of government. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered the people is first divided between two distances government (states and federal), and the portion allotted to each subdivided among distance and separate departments. In their attempt to balance order with liberty, the founders
Although today in the twenty -first century we have more of a regulated federalism, the basic concepts of protection of individual rights along with free expression of ideas is still at the core of our current political philosophy. The founders intentions, primarily fueled by the Federalists, sought to create a national system under which the new area of democracy would thrive in the shadow of what they perceived to be an oppressive past with mother England.
The Founding Fathers had multiple reasons on why they created a federalist government, the main reasons were avoiding a tyranny, more people participating in politics, and “experimenting” the states in order to find new government ideas and programs James Madison stated the Federalist Papers, The Federalist, No. 10, If "factious leaders kindle a flame within their particular states," the national, or federal government, can "conflagration through the other states." Federalism and the 10th amendment prevents one to take control of a state or the federal government, avoiding tyranny. The idea of having more people evolved in government came from the ideals of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson believed having both local (state) and national (federal) officials would increase participation in government.The last concept with using states as “experiments” comes from this concept: let us say that a state disastrous new policy, it would not be a disaster for everyone. In contrast, if one state 's new programs or policies work well, other states can adopt them to their own
After the establishment of the constitution, the Federalist administrations faces many significant challenges when dealing with the economics of the United States; much of the country was divided over issues such as how to raise money, establishing a public credit system, how to pay the national debt, and whether or not a national bank should be established. Leaders like Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison came to represent the ideas of the people and as these ideas became more solid, debate and opposition rose. The Federalists saw multiple ways to resolve these issues, and the resolutions established that leadership in the United States would be successful.
Some of the advantages of having a federal government are that the national level of government can work on the bigger picture tasks while the state government solve the local and specific issues, so that each departments time can be used wisely and efficiently. Furthermore, if citizens took their everyday problems to the national level, then the national government would be over worked and the citizen might have to travel far to even reach the states capital. Each side of the
...n our federal system has changed dramatically over the years. State governments have served as training grounds for national politicians and as laboratories in which new ideas can be tested. The Supreme Court, in its role as interpreter of the Constitution, has been a major player in the redefinition of our federal system. Increasingly, Congress has been guilty of undertaking areas traditionally reserved to the states and restricting authority to regulate these areas. Both federal and state politicians compete to address problems. Over the years, power in the federal system has flowed to the national government because tax money has flowed to there. With its financial resources, the federal government has been able to offer assistance to state and local governments and thereby, involve itself in just about every governmental function performed by these governments.
The early years of the Constitution of the United States were full of political strife. The two prominent political ideals were complete opposites. The Jeffersonian Republicans were focused on giving power to the people and maintaining a pastoral economy, while the Federalists supported the control of the government by the elite class, and maintaining “positive” democracy. Both parties feared the influence and effect the other party would have on the public. In Linda K. Kerber's article, “The Fears of the Federalists”, the major concerns Federalists held in the early 19th century are described. Ever since the war with and separation from England, the citizens of America were seen to be continually drive to “patriotic rebellion” as a way to voice their wants. Violence was not an uncommon practice of the era (the use of mob tactics was prevalent), but Federalists feared that if Democratic values were abused and unrestrained, the country would fall into anarchy.
James Madison was a very intelligent man and was one of the forefathers for our country. In Madison’s Federalist Paper Number 10 he describes the need to control factions in the United States and how the government is to do so. The Federalist papers are a key point in describing how to control “factions” that are so dangerous to the young government, or so Madison feels. In Madison’s paper he clearly lays out his idea on the sources of factions, his feelings on democracy versus a republic, and how to control factions.
National, Local, and State governments work together cooperatively to solve common problems rather than making separate polices. They work more on an equal level to get things fixed. This type of federalism is hard to tell where one type of government ends and the next one begins. National and state governments are independent and interdependent with an overlap of functions and financial resources. It is difficult for one to accumulate absolute power with this type of federalism.
In conclusion, a system based on balanced federalism was originally envisioned by the founders and serves as the best option for an efficient government. It is essential for the powers to be distributed in a manner where states deal with state matters and the national government does not overstep its role as the organizational factor in the system. As for the recent shift towards a central government one can only hope that the nation takes caution as it proceeds and that power transfers back to equilibrium between the federal and state governments.
Federalism is a political system in which authority is divided between different levels of government (Barbour and Wright, 75). Federalism has been around since 1787 in the United States of America. The divided powers between the state governments and the national governments are powers that are limited to a certain level so they do not depend on each other for power. The United States of America has a federal government in which the central government shares influence with the numerous smaller state governments. The idea was for a “more perfect union.”
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.
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).
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.