Federalism Pros And Cons

(a.) The purpose of the Tenth Amendment is to delegate many powers to the states. In the Amendment, it is said that any power not delegated to the national government that is not prohibited to the states, is given to the states to carry out. If a power is not given or restricted, it is constitutionally a state power. The Tenth Amendment is intended to contribute to federalism by giving the states a broad and extensive set of powers. The powers are much more numerous than the specific ones delegated to the national government. In giving the states this power, it ensures that the national government does not take entire or excessive sovereignty, and that states still have a say. The Amendment also contributes to federalism because all the delegated

Many times the conflict comes from states wanting to apply their own immigration laws, whether they are more strict or not, that go against the laws put in place by the national government. As of recent years, the debate over the policy has been on different factors and whether or not they should be put in place or enforced. These debated factors include: stricter border protection, arrests based on suspicion of illegal immigration, the granting of citizenship to illegals (especially children), the ability for illegal aliens to receive aid and benefits, racial profiling, and more. The debate for stronger immigration laws is especially prevalent in Southwestern states, where illegal immigration from Mexico has increased. Also, many cases from states on their stricter immigration laws have reached the national level of discussion of whether they are

This battle can be explained by the Supreme Court case of Arizona v. United States. The original controversy of the case was ignited in 2010 when Arizona passed a new immigration law, SB 1070. Senate Bill 1070 made it a state crime to be an illegal alien in the state and to seek work if not authorized. The law also allowed for police to stop and warrantlessly arrest due to any suspicion of illegality and require any stopped person be asked about their citizenship. While the state of Arizona had said the law would only build and greater enforcement national law on the issue, the national government sought to stop its enforcement. Arizona also argued that the states had the power to make their own immigration laws. The national government said a “patchwork” or stricter laws on the policy would not solve the problem, and that SB 1070 infringed on and conflicts with set federal immigration law and the executive branch’s power in immigration. With this information, the national government took the state to the Supreme Court to question the law’s constitutionality. The final decision from the Court in 2012 called all put one provision of SB 1070 unconstitutional in a 5-3 result, showing the federal regulations in place rule out Arizona’s stricter efforts. Because the case was the greatest to reach