It stated that giving states this right would be, “1st Blending together legislative and judicial powers. 2nd Hazarding an interruption of the peace of the states by civil discord, in case of a diversity of opinions among the state legislature. 3rd
4.b. Not having these powers made the national government weak, because it could not really do anything. Each state was more in charge of themselves with nothing to unify them. 5.a. When a territory began to have settlers,
• How are powers distributed between the states and the national government under our federal system? Give examples. • What are the advantages and disadvantages of the federal system? Give some current examples. 2.
The first document talks about how federal and local government had different powers. For example, the local government had more local problems like setting up schools, setting up local government and holding elections. But Federal government delt with problems that could affect the country as a whole such as regulating trade or declaring war. Federalism protects us against tyranny because it limits what can be done of a state level and what can be done on a federal level.
This is evident in document A, where it shows you a Venn diagram of which powers are given to the states and which powers are given to the federal government. For one thing, this shows how “a double security arises to the rights of the people”, which means that when the power is distributed between the states and the federal government, neither is able to gain absolute power over the country. Federalism also comes in handy by specifying what the states get to control and what the national government gets to control, which is meant to prevent conflict between the two powers. For example, the task of declaring war is meant for the national government only. If that wasn’t specified, there would likely be a lot of cases where states declared war, and the national government had to clean up the mess.
Assessment Question #1: In Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, by Richard Lee, Lee declares that the states had more power so that they could prevent “usurpation [illegal grab of power, authority or sovereignty]”(746) from the national government. Before the Articles, the colonies were ruled by the British crown where the national government had all the power and its power did not have to be justified. At first, the articles appeared very attractive to the Framers because of this change in polarity- from extreme monarch to extreme state independence. However, years after the system took off, the framers realized that this system of government was not working because the national government had very little, if any, power.
In the compound republic of America, the powers surrendered by the people is first divided between two governments (DOC A), the two governments being state and federal. The state and federal government will have separate and shared powers(DOC A) because of this, one government won’t become too powerful. The second way the Constitution guards against tyranny is through the separation of powers. Liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate
Shaylee Olney, We the People, Unit Two, Question 1 In the book, A More Perfect Union, author William Peters stated, “A major goal of the drafters of these state constitutions was to create governments so structured that the power of those entrusted with governing might never encroach on the liberty of the governed.” There is a challenge in both empowering and limiting the government. Although a strong government is necessary, a line needs to be drawn for the powers they have, which have been laid out in our Constitution over time. Both the government and the governed need to be in check.
This type of system can sometimes cause confusion on who has the authority to make decisions at local and state levels. Amendment Ten to the Constitution was established to address this issue; basically, the amendment states that unless otherwise delegated by the Constitution, to the United States, that the power lies with the states or the people. Amendment Ten’s incorporation into the Bill of Rights is vital for the preservation of liberty and also key to diffusing the realm of government rule. According to the text, “By the People”, during the Obama administration, “progressive federalism” was introduced and there was a mix of the “Democratic approach (national goals) and Republican values (state innovation)” (95). Additionally, the text, “By the People”, states that “The Constitution’s authority rests, not on the states, but on we the people” (65).
By limiting the number of powers each part of government is in control of, both federal and state governments are forced to work in unison and create a balanced government and guard against tyranny. The integration of federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, equal representation for larger and smaller states, and enumerated powers creates a unified government to prevent tyranny. Through the implementation of these powers, the framers of the constitution aimed to guard individual liberties and the rights given to all United States
Furthermore, Congress was made up of two bodies, with the number of persons in the house dependent on population while each state would produce two senators. All amendments had to be approved by ¾ of the states. Lastly, the central and state government had direct power over the people. Explain how each of the following has been used to expand the power of the federal government over the states. Commerce
46, written again by James Madison, he emphasizes that the national and state governments are two totally contrastive organizations. By expressing that they are separate but are still able to connect on various platforms, Madison reveals that the power of these governments lie in the people. Furthermore, the people’s instinctive presence will always influence the governments of their respective states, therefore the federal government must, in relation, be exceptionally compliant with the people. As said in true terms, “ The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error.
This country was founded with the attempt to separate the federal government and the state government, known as federalism. The goal of federalism is to divide the power of state and federal governments, protect the rights of the state, and prevent tyranny of the majority. Throughout the years, federalism turned into dual federalism where the state and federal government were completely independent of each other and only shared a dependency on the Constitution. The united states suppressing now to cooperative federalism, the national government has assumed even more power, overruling the states with Supreme Court decisions and actions, and executive Orders. Furthermore, the Federal government should grant their state governments more power, due to the connection the state governments hold with their local people.
The distribution of power in the united states has been a fierce debate ever since the founding of the country. The constant shifting of the balance of these powers between the federal and state governments of the united states has created an ever swinging pendulum swaying between two extremes: a oppressive autocracy and an ununited mob. Though it is debated where exactly the perfect balance is the general concensus is the balance is somewhere in the middle. The original form of this balance was the articles of confederation.
Representatives of two states petitioned for the wording to specifically limit the federal government’s power to those expressed within the Constitution. Such a severe limitation would deny the federal government implied powers needed to successfully complete its duties under the Constitution. James Madison rejected the idea, as he strongly believed that limiting the powers of the federal government would be impossible and the work that needed to be done would never get done. When questions arise over what the government is responsible for, what the states are responsible for, or any issue. For instance, questions about how important road signs should look is not mentioned in the Constitution so it is a state power.
