The states can contest the federal government rules and regulations in the federal judiciary branch. The states have contested federal laws, incidence of them blocking federal authorities from enforcing federal laws and cases involving individuals who break federal laws, but not state law (Levy, 2013). The ability of states to challenge federal laws that they feel are unconstitutional is part of our system of democracy. These challenges have led to parts of a law or the full law to be unconstitutional and overturned by the
In the aftermath of the civil war with the union the victors political change was inevitable. The north had just won a war fought over the issue of slavery and to not address the issue permanently after their victory would be a failure on their part. Despite heated tensions and many in the south opposed to any final resolution on the subject of slavery that did rule in their favor Abraham Lincoln and his allies were able to garner enough support in congress to pass the 13th,14th, and 15th amendments. These 3 amendments clarified finally the rights established in the constitution applied to African Americans just as much as those of European descent.
In the 1790s two major parties dominated the political scene. Those parties were people who sided with Alexander Hamilton, known as “Federalists” while the people who supported Thomas Jefferson were the “Anti-Federalists”. During the conclusion of the table, it was quite evident that the Anti-Federalists were considered to be more liberal, or in a broader sense, Democratic than the other party at the time. This can be inferred through the notion that they supported France throughout the French Revolution because they hated Britain because they once controlled everything they did; while on the contrary, the Federalists, which consisted of mostly business people, supported Britain due to their importance in trades. They also were against the
Two opposing sides. Months of fierce debate. The fate of a young country at stake. In 1787, the newly independent United States proposed a new plan of government. The proposal set off a heated dispute between the Federalists and anti-Federalists.
The Federalists and Anti-Federalists possessed many opposing views. From the establishment of the Constitution, the two parties were created defining the first issue between the two. Those who favored the Constitution were known as the Federalists and those who opposed it were labeled as the Antifederalists. Another main issue was the position on the Articles of Confederation. The Federalist party felt strongly that they should be abandoned.
The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists both wanted almost completely different things when it came to the power of the national government. The Federalists believed in the national government having almost all control, while the Anti-Federalists wanted most of the power to be in the hands of the states and people. They both decided on the Bill of Rights, where they decided that the power had to be fairly distributed among the states and people and the national government. The Elastic clause and the General Welfare clause were two features of the original Constitution that led to growth in power of the national government.
Hamad yousef May 9 /2018 Homework 4: The US constitution gives only certain powers to the federal government while the rest of the authority lies with the state governments. In case of the clash between the federal and state laws, the federal law prevails. However, in case of a clash between the federal and state governments, the result can be a deadlock.
The state and federal government have many similarities such as they both have constitutions that establishes a separation of powers, and a system of checks and balances between the different branches of government. Both of these governments are similar in many ways, however, they both are very different. The differences can be found in the constitutions, the legislative branch, and the executive branch. The difference in the constitutions can be found in the level of detail, length, changes, and the role of the people. The U.S. Constitution is vague and generally outlines the policies.
As others are the federalist, I’d be an anti-federalism. According to fact that they didn’t hate to support federalism. All they wanted to make more improvement. They worked so that the states would have more power. They didn’t want any secrets.
During the writing of the Constitution there was a group of people who did not agree with the federalist and they were the anti-federalists. They believed in the exact opposite of what the federalists believed. The federalists believed "that the nation might not survive without the passage of the Constitution"(The Ratification Debate). They argued that the government would only have powers that the Constitution would state. They also argued that the separation of the powers of government would help balance out power and help prevent any tyranny.
State Rights referred to the struggle between the federal government and also individual states. Much of the focus was on the issue of whether the United States was a single entity or a consolidation of independent nations. Throughout the early 1830’s the abolitionist movement occurred.
The Federalist and Democratic-Republicans Alexander Hamilton, oh Alexander Hamilton, they were waiting in the wings for you. You didn’t take your shot, while Jefferson was trying to take his. Bringing the issue to the table was a must, but for political parties in 1789, they were just a obstacle to get past. People took sides, you either chose to be a Federalist or a Democratic-Republican, a wealthy man or talented nobody.
State laws only govern the citizens within a particular state, but federal laws apply to all U.S. citizens. The Constitution and federal laws take precedence over state law and the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution explains that federal law always supersedes state law which means federal always takes precedent if there is a conflict between the two. However, historically the federal government has not cracked down every time a state and federal law are in contradiction. An example of when the Federal government has stepped in using the supremacy clause is Arizona's immigration law which went all the way to the Supreme Court. However, an example of when the Federal government does not enforce a Federal law is in Nevada where certain counties
Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices The process for electing a federal judge is both a simple, yet complicated one. A number of things take place between the need for a nominee and the appointment to a position. The basis for the nomination and appointment of federal judges and Supreme Court Justices is the Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution: “The President...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....” First a vacancy must be present at which time the President can make a nomination.
Each state’s constitution must vary so that it can apply to the smooth functionality of that state and the different beliefs of its citizens. Article 4 Section 1 of the Constitution states, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof” (The Constitution). This idea ensures that each state respect one another’s laws, even if the laws vary. States have been given the freedom to create their own laws, but there would be no diverse culture or respect for others in the United States if each state acted under the exact same rule.
