Category: Federalism

One advantage to a national policy that must be implemented by one agency of the federal bureaucracy.

National policies are often compared to those of the federal governments, and, which is also rather important, there is a number of considerable differences between the two structures. One of the main advantages of the national policy, compared to the federal one is its unifying character. The policies, laws, and projections are created for the whole nation, not its segregated states. It seemingly helps to improve the political system of a country, because the general options and aspects of life are prioritized towards the peculiarities, which can exist in states. The political machine of bureaucracy is more obvious in the federal law fields. Thus, national policy, even being also a powerful political machine, is broader in its views. It literally takes care of the whole nation, which makes it advantageous (Smith, 2016).

One disadvantage to a national policy that must be implemented by one agency of the federal bureaucracy.

Nevertheless, taking care of the general aspects can be viewed from the opposite point of view and become a disadvantage. The fact is that the federal law and political system have to deal with some local issues. The segregated federal states may have some particular issues in the local area, which are not seen or neglected by the national policy in the advantage of the unification. However, this way, the federal authorities may acquire a kind of tunnel thinking, which is also not good for the healthy political environment. A more general look on the local issues could, probably, be fresh for the federal policy, if the example from the national law is taken (Cristi, 2014).

One option to maintain the advantage of the national policy discussed above.

The national policy usually gives a wide range of general ideas to be imposed on the federal states. Nonetheless, it is widely accepted that local authorities play a more important role in the population of the segregated federal states. It may produce the effect of the autocratic system, which contradict the democratic character of the national policy. Some of the national decisions tend to be reworked at the local level to suit the specific federal requirements. Thus, to maintain the advantage of the unifying character, the national authorities decisions should be taken without imposing some local changes on them (Smith, 2016).

One option to improve the disadvantage of the national policy discussed above.

As a matter of fact, the local and federal policies also play an important role for the national authorities. It is noteworthy that the implementation of policies for the whole nation imposes more pressure for the power holders. Thus, power should be dispersed to weaken this pressure, and the federal policies seem to cope with this. They help to protect the citizens from the national autocracy and tyranny, giving more opportunities to build a healthy democratic environment for the whole country. However, the peculiar character of federal states should also be taken into consideration while producing national policies. Locally, it would be more comfortable to adopt and promote the laws and decisions, which in their deep character, consider the differences and demands of the federal policies from the very start of their implementation. It could, probably, reduce the misconnection of the national authorities and the federal governments (Cristi, 2014).

References

Cristi, I. (2014). Federalism and autonomy. Ovidius University Annals, Series Economic Sciences, 14(1), 338.

Smith, F. (2016). Local sovereign immunity. Columbia Law Review, 116(409).

Federalism’s Roots: Philosophers Hobbes and Locke’s Views

One of the first philosophical and historical influences on the founders of the United States government was Thomas Hobbes. Thomas Hobbs was an English philosopher who wrote the book Leviathan. In this book, he stated that people are incapable of ruling themselves due to how ugly and selfish human nature is, and so he suggested having a strong leader with an iron fist.

After Hobbes, John Locke was one of the most important influences on the Founding Fathers while formulating the United States Government. John Locke refined and redefined the core of government. He agreed with Hobbs that humans are, by nature, selfish creatures, but he viewed their ability to reason as a way to avoid tyrannical leadership. Locke identified the basic structure of a well-founded government. He believed that it was the duty of the government to protect the natural, God-given rights of the people, which he deemed included life, liberty, and property.

Today, it is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the government should fail to uphold and protect these rights, the citizens under that government had the right and the duty to overthrow it. This idea deeply motivated Thomas Jefferson as he drafted the Declaration of Independence.

Another influence was the Magna Carta, which established the idea of limited government in the English political system. This document only forced King John to consult nobles before making decisions; however, it ironically became integrated into the United States government.

Constitutional Federalism: Balancing State and National Power

Federalism is a type of government in which power is divided between the national government and other governmental units. It was written into the Constitution through the tenth amendment, which states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. This is why there are different levels of law, such as state law with responsibility to its citizens and federal law that has different responsibilities to the same citizens. Federalism had not been implemented well into the Articles of Confederation, and this created a weak central government, which was considered to be ineffectual. The intent behind creating the new Constitution and getting rid of the Articles of Confederation was to increase the federal government’s power, but not to the extent of creating a monarchy with overbearing authority. Federalism was created as a means to prevent a Monarchy from ever occurring in the United States. The people wanted a say in the government’s choices and wanted their voices to be heard and acted upon.

Federalism in Modern Policy: The Marijuana Controversy

Federalism in action can be seen through legalized Marijuana. The state can choose whether or not to allow the use of Marijuana for medical or recreational purposes and set any restrictions it deems necessary. Marijuana is illegal under federal law, but if the states don’t enforce a particular law, it will never reach the federal level. This creates a trend of checks and balances to ensure that one never has excessive amounts of control and power over the other.

Federalism and Trump’s Travel Ban: Checks and Balances in Action

A current issue dealing with checks and balances would be Donald Trump’s travel ban. Currently, his ban places very strict limits on travelers from certain countries. Immigrants, travelers, and visa holders from Iran and Libya. North Korea. Somalia. Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen are barred from entering the United States. During his campaign in 2016, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown” on any Muslims entering the United States “Until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” as stated by the Washington Post.

In the process of creating this ban, Trump consulted staffers of Congress without going through the party’s congressional leaders for feedback, which successfully allowed him to bypass the legislative branch despite a previous executive order given by Kennedy, which made this illegal. The first travel ban was an executive order given out on January 27, 2017, banning entry to seven primarily Muslim countries for 90 days. These countries were Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. This ban also placed a permanent hold on Syrian refugees and a four-month hold on refugees across the globe.

This quickly became known as the “Muslim ban” and created a firestorm of public protest. The Executive power was checked by the judicial branch of government, balancing the powers, when courts in New York and Massachusetts put a temporary block on the ban. They said a traveler with the legal right to enter with a visa could not be denied from the United States. Trump then revised the ban in which he removed Iraq due to protests from the veteran communities, but Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen remained on the list for the 90-day ban, and global refugees were banned for 120 days.

Hawaii placed a nationwide block on the ban before it was implemented due to it exhibiting a “primarily religious anti-Muslimism objective.” As stated by the Independent. The Supreme Court intervened and stated that travelers had to cite a relationship with a close United States relative. Therefore, the third current version is now in place, and this ban does not expire. This issue called into question the limits of the executive branch. The legal fight continues for the removal of the ban.

Media Bias in Federalism Narratives: An Analysis of The New Yorker’s Coverage

Cassidy, John. “The Dangerously Thin Line Between Political Incitement and Political Violence.” The New Yorker, October 24, 2018. Accessed October 24, 2018. The New Yorker is an American magazine that is trustworthy for factual accuracy but has a left-winged bias represented through its articles. One such article is “The Dangerously Thin Line Between Political Incitement and Political Violence,” written by John Cassidy over pipe bombs that targeted Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, John Brennan, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and George Soros. None of the packages actually went off. The first place media bias appears is through bias of placement. On the website, this article was front and center, forcing users to look at it and scan over it, which creates a more likely chance of one reading the article.

The next bias presented was the bias of labeling, “Even before Trump spoke, some right-wing pundits and provocateurs were busy spreading another outrageous conspiracy theory.” This bias clearly shows as much about the person applying the labels as the person being labeled. The one doing the labeling is implying that they are on the opposite end of the one whom they are labeling. It is made clear then that the one being labeled is on the opposing end of the one doing the labeling.

One of Alinski’s rules is to pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. There are several instances where this tactic is used, one of which is how the Democrats used it against Judge Brett Kavanagh recently. The Democrats identified their target and attacked relentlessly, bearing no mind to the fact he had maintained a stellar career with a clean record for over the past 30 years. “Can you imagine in the arena of conflict charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting the impact of the attack with qualifying remarks such as, “He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband”? This becomes political idiocy.”

Federalism’s Strain: The Kavanagh Nomination Saga

The very moment President Donald Trump nominated Kavanagh to the Supreme Court, he put a bright red target on Kavanagh’s head. The first efforts to personalize and polarize occurred when Dick Durbin, a United States Senator, claimed that Kavanagh had given false testimony in the prior judicial confirmation. Next, it was implied that he had “stolen” documents from a server used by Republican and Democratic committee staff.

There were also allegations that Kavanagh was a racist, lying thief, as shown by his private practices. These efforts all failed to reach their goal. However, California Senator Diane Feinstein brought to the table an entirely new way to personalize the issue: Blasey Ford. She became the other target of the Democrats. In their efforts to prevent the confirmation of Kavanagh, they exploited Ford, violated her wishes, and fed her to the wolves of public opinion. This became personal for many Americans, which ignited the #metoo movement once more and successfully polarized the issue, which caused a delay in Kavanagh’s confirmation. Although they had minor success, the overall attempt to keep Kavanagh from the Supreme Court was a failure.

References

1. Hawkins, John. “12 Ways To Use Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals Against Liberals.” Town hall. Accessed October 24, 2018.
2. Shiver, Kyle. ”Alinskyite in Chief Is Master Polarizer,” American Thinker, October 20, 2009. Accessed October 20, 2018.
3. “Concepts of Federalism.” CliffsNotes, n.d. Accessed October 20, 2018, Soffen, Kim and Darla Cameron.
4. “How Trump’s Travel Ban broke from the Normal Executive Order Process.” The Washington Post, February 9, 2017.
5. “Foundations of American Government.” American Government, n.d. Accessed October 21, 2018.

Pollution is an epidemic that is constantly in the mind of policy makers, especially since all United Nations member states agreed on the ‘2030 agenda for Sustainable Development Goals’ (UN, 2015) and pollution falls under goal 17 of climate action. According to (Berg, 2017) anything at a molecular level that has a less than positive impact on the environment classifies as pollution. There are many different types of pollutions, but it was agreed by (McDaniel et all, 2011) that there are 3 major forms of pollution which are ‘air pollution, water pollution and land pollution’. The goal of this paper is to speak specifically about air pollution in order to keep a narrow and specialized focus.

Due to globalization and its impacts on climate change, there has been considerable effort to make the air cleaner. However, these efforts are usually found in the indoor air environment and not outdoor air which is evident from the fact the air quality is over the limits set by the World Health Organization (Krzyzanowski, 2007).

“Air pollution is a mix of particles and gases that can reach harmful concentrations both outside and indoor” (Nunez, 2019). There are many ways in which air pollution can take but one of the more frequent causes is due to particles being released from burning fuels (Bradford,2018). Other reasons for air pollution are wide ranging from use of carbon fuels which is prevalent in most transportation vehicles with an engine, industrial production especially in industries like the oil and gas sector and finally, air does not stay in one place, but it travels. The latter statement showing that air pollution in the United States would also affect the air pollution in Canada (Government of Canada, 2019).

How exactly does it affect Canada is a question that goes far beyond the quantitative figure of 14,400 deaths per year according to the research done by (Health Canada, 2019) along with other wide-ranging health effects such as “asthma, improper brain development and shortened life expectancy” (Broom, 2019). By using intuitive rational we can safely conclude that such adverse health impacts lead to a “loss of productivity, poor growth of agricultural crops and damage to raw and unfinished goods” (Government of Canada, 2019).

One would assume that with the mounting evidence suggesting that air pollution is negatively correlated with economic growth and the numerous health impacts it has on an individual, Canada must have robust and successful policy measures to combat climate change and air pollution. However, according to (Lewis,2019) Canada is operating below potential to reduce such harmful chemicals in the air. There are many reasons attributed to this according to many scholars one of which is Canadian federalism. Conversely, there are scholars such as (Sturm, 2016) who argue that federalism can contribute to successful policy making and implementation through the diversity it creates.

However, through an analysis of research papers, this paper illustrates that federalism in Canada has a negative impact on air pollution policy setting due to the intergovernmental paralysis it creates due to autonomy of different provinces and is heavily dependent on what type of government is in the center.

Methodology

The first part of my research consists of understanding the phenomenon of pollution in general and more specifically air pollution. After that there is processioned to understand the health impacts of pollution and finally look to understand its correlation with economic growth.

Secondly, a detailed literature review was undertaken of the political and legal context of Canada on the specific issues mentioned above, which included a thorough analysis of academic papers, reports, articles to understand how the issues mentioned above have impacted Canada and its ability to combat climate change and air pollution.

Lastly, after synergizing the information, a practical policy recommendation to combat climate change and air pollution is made.

Case of Canada

Although, Canada is yet to fully implement its desire to set national caps on industrial emission of four air pollutants and giving companies access to a type of trading known as the ‘clean development mechanism’ under the Kyoto protocol to help curb global pollution. Regardless, of the fact that Canada did not have the opportunity to fully reach its potential yet in curbing air pollution, the projections made cite for an interesting debate to take place. For example, the health benefits are expected to be ‘1200 fewer Canadian who die each year because of health problems linked to air pollution’, ‘1,260 fewer hospital admissions and emergency room visits’ and the ‘benefits from the reduced risk of death and illness associated with air quality improvements are over $6 billion annually’. All of this contributed to economic benefits but is not limited to the potential for more investment in technology and innovation in Canada e.g. cleantech. Also, due to an improvement in air quality, workers are expected to have improved productivity, energy efficiency, and ‘more opportunity to sell Canadian environmental products and know-how abroad mean long-term economic benefits for Canada and more jobs for Canadians’. This example was chosen to show how making environmentally friendly policies can support economic growth.

Federalism and Success of Policy Action

There are views that an increased need for innovative policy measures is required due to the changing global dynamics and the increasingly complex challenges present for which limited resources are present (Edler, Jakob & Fagerberg, Jan, 2017). Ironically, according to (Sturm, 2016) federalism allows for such innovations as often times policy making is done through a collective process with regional governments participating in the decision-making process resulting in innovative policies.

Moreover, federalism allows for particular sensitives related to the region to be taken into account. For example, if the federal government wishes to a launch a new development project, the regional government privy of its local condition may advise against doing so due to the environmental impacts it may have at present and for the future.

Bearing in mind the environmental challenge present and the scare resources, Federalism can serve as an excellent means of policy making in support of the air pollution.

Federalism and Problems of Policy Action

“Federalism is a legal construct, offering one way to sustain the diversity of geographically based communities” (Simmons, 2016). Both provincial and the federal government have autonomy in their decision making but there are certain things that fall under the federal jurisdiction such as the signing of treaties e.g. the Kyoto Protocol. In my opinion this is where the first problem starts because we know that according to (Miljan, 2018) there is a ‘political business cycle’, which implies that the relatively short political cycle forces politicians to focus on short term gains through policy measures such as reducing taxes, boosting the economic growth in order to get reelected. Furthermore, the treaties entered into and the policy measures taken at a federal level are heavily influenced by what type of politicians is in power. For example, under the conservative leadership of Stephen Harper – a time known as the ‘harper doctrine’, Canada has taken a backward step towards advancing climate change (Barlow et all, 2015). Additionally, we have seen this practically demonstrated from the fact that Canada has failed.

Under the banner of federalism – as meetings take place between the ‘executives’ of the provincial and federal government on policy matters such as pollution. Assuming the federal government has a majority government, it can swiftly pass legislations/policy decision through utilization of party discipline which can be either good or bad. Conversely, if a government does not hold majority seats in the assembly, it is directly competing against the rival political party in maximizing political capitals. According to (Dryzek, 2013) actors are selfish and only looking to maximize their self-interest – ironically or rationally enough (depending on differing personal views) this has more to do with economic gains, rather than environmental. Moreover, competing with different political ideologies can unnecessarily slow down the decision-making process, policies are not being made. Therefore, keeping the complications mentioned above, it is fair to say that such ‘intergovernmental paralysis’ and cutthroat competition to maximize only economic gains will lead to what (Harrison, 2016) claims to be a ‘race to the bottom’ for which the fundamental/root cause is the institutional fragmentation that occurs due to federalism.

Lastly, such intergovernmental paralysis and selfish motivations prevent new policies in support of air pollution to be passed and only makes matters worse.

Recommendation

In order to make recommendations, it is imperative to understand what worked, what didn’t work and what the key lessons were. It can be inferred that it is always easier to look at past policies and improve on its success.

Firstly, there needs to be a mass educational campaign which makes the general public aware of the problem. At present, there is large data collection by the federal government but is dispersed to the public in ‘bits and pieces’ and it is left to the public of what to do with that information. Additionally, it leads to misunderstanding amongst the masses of what exactly needs to be done to combat climate change and air pollution (McKitrick, 2006). This is evident from the fact that certain segments of society are protesting, while the others think it is not a major issue. Rather than have such ad-hoc method of information disbursement, the federal government in conjunction with the provincial government should allow for a more streamlined approach of data disbursement and some call for action for the general public to take.

Secondly, there should be a decentralized approach as different individuals from different communities have different priorities. McKitrick (2003) argued that rather than “licensing motor vehicles by year, we should have licensing by kilometers driven, where the cost per kilometer is adjusted by the emission characteristics of the car”. McKitrick essentially believes that this will allow communities to take ownership of the air pollution in their city and through a public vote will be able to determine the price per quality. From a personal standpoint, this idea seems rather innovative and able to overcome the challenges of federalism. However, some are under the belief that actors are motivated by self-interest and will purposely try to keep the price per kilometer low to maximize their economic gains. This is precisely where federalism can be useful, as it can set broad guidelines on the minimum price to keep as well as establish pricing strategies for different types of vehicles e.g. trucks and cars. The provincial government would then have complete autonomy on how to conduct the polls and what to do with the revenue earned.

Lastly, the federal government should agree with a decentralization mechanism for environmental policy regulation but provide higher incentives to provinces that are more successful in reducing pollution. The incentives can take place in the form of finances that provinces receive by the federal government. Also, the federal government can pass laws for strict punishment for the offense of corruption. The rationale behind was logically deduced by analyzing previous case studies where a decentralization approach took place. According to (Yang et all, 2018), who analyzed the case of China found that local governments are willing to sacrifice natural resources as well as the environment for the sake of economic gains. Additionally, Guo and Zheng (2012) found through their own research paper that such a decentralized approach gives rise to corruption as bribery, kickbacks and other instruments are present since there may be a conflict of interest between the local government and the business enterprises.

Finally, there were also mixed results between decentralization and the environmental impact it had. In her study of the fiscal decentralization of India, she found the environmental impact to be positive in certain states and negative in certain states (Lovo, 2018).

The fact that decentralization showed an improvement in environmental regulations, suggests there is policy for improvement and gives a glimpse of hope and optimism considering the challenges federalism possesses. Therefore, by readdressing the incentives and having a strict punishment for corruption will help mitigate the challenges that come with a decentralized approach.

Conclusion

This paper hopes to illustrate the problem federalism has on policy making and implementation and subsequently introduce recommendations to solve such problems. However, more research is needed on how federalism has been successful for policy making in countries like India and the key lessons and investigating whether those lessons are applicable in Canada or not. Moreover, there is a need to look at the quantitative analysis of both unitary states and federal states and its ability to deal with policy making. By analyzing the difference between the 2 and if the result is statistically significant, it may be worth looking into recommending a new governance model.

References

1. Que, W., Zhang, Y., Liu, S., & Yang, C. (2018). The spatial effect of fiscal decentralization and factor market segmentation on environmental pollution. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184(Complete), 402-413. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.285.
2. Local government, polluting enterprise and environmental pollution: based on MATLAB software. J. Softw., v.7, p.2182, 2012, Guo Z. et al.
3. Edler, Jakob & Fagerberg, Jan. (2017). Innovation policy: What, why, and how. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 33. 2-23. 10.1093/oxrep/grx001.

Federalism consists of a complex governmental mechanism having legislative powers that is government at both central as well as at the state levels. Both state as well as the central government drive its powers from the constitution. Under the idea of federalism, the power to make laws has been divided with the central government having power to make laws for the whole country and the state governments having powers to form legislations for their respective states in such a way that government is legally independent within its own sphere. Neither is subordinate to the other, each government having its own area of powers and exercising their powers without being controlled by other governments and work in co-ordination.

This system is based upon a compromise between unity and regional diversity, between the need for an effective central power and the need for checks or constrains on that power. A government association might be shaped in either two head ways: 1) it could be framed by a deliberate arrangement between an individual from sovereign and free states, for the organization of specific issues of general worry, as on account of the United States of America or Australia; 2) the regions of unitary state might be changed into an administrative Union, as occurred if there should be an occurrence of Canada or India. Historically, the political organization were unitary not federal. But economic, political and social conditions forced the unitary states to enter into association with other states, so that they can solve common problems.

The concept of federalism was established in the United States of America in 1787. Prior to 1787, US was ‘Confederation’ and it turned into the ‘Federation’ with the appropriation of the Constitution of US in 1787. American constitution partitioned powers so that the force of general government indicated and the buildup is left to territorial governments. This federal system was adopted by other countries as well. It is a system where sovereignty is divided between the core-centre and the peripheral-states federalism can be classified as ‘centripetal’ or ‘centrifugal’ point of division of powers.

According to Livingstone, the essential nature of federalism is to be sought for, not in the shadings of legal and constitutional terminology, but in the forces, economic, social, political, cultural – that have made the outward forms of federalism necessary. The essence of federalism lies not in the institutional or constitutional structure but in the society itself. Federal government is a device by which the federal qualities of the society are articulated and protected.

Encyclopedia Britannica defines federalism as a mode of political organization that unites separate states or other polities within an overarching political system in such a way as to allow each to maintain its own fundamental political integrity. Federal systems do this by requiring that basic policies be made and implemented through negotiation in some form, so that all the members can share in making and executing decisions. The political principles that animate federal systems emphasize the primacy of bargaining and negotiated coordination among several power centers; they stress the virtues of dispersed power centers as a means for safeguarding individual and local liberties.

Federalism means the distribution of force of the state among a number of coordinate bodies each originating in and controlled by the constitution. A proper respect for state functions, recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a union of separate state governments, and a continuance of the belief that the national government will fare best if the states and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways.

Therefore, federalism is not only just a matter of relations between the center and the state, but also it is a device to ensure participative role of the state in the decision-making process. The embodiment of federalism is the presence of the union and the states and the circulation of forces between them by the composed constitution. The public authority at the center and the public authority in the states share, on a concurred premise, the entirety of legislative force without forfeiting their own essential political uprightness.

James Madison remains mysterious on federalism despite immense efforts by other analysts, commentators, and biographers on the same (Hamilton et al. 2017). He is hailed widely to be the father of the constitution of Philadelphia. There was a change in his views towards federalism in the long run of his political career. In this regard, he had to state clearly the relationship exhibited between the national and state government with their spheres of authority, respectively. Furthermore, he clearly illustrated his views concerning the character and nature of the union in federalism (Hamilton et al. 2017).

As a result, there was an inquiry on the federal principled status. Madison’s important concepts about federalism were altered immediately after the newly developed constitution commenced its operation. Furthermore, he became so reluctant to answer questions that relate to his notions of federalism. This study will give an account of the evidence that Madison presented in his case on federalism (Hamilton et al. 2017).

In federal systems, the different units sharing power have their separate governments and one central government. For instance, in cases where the system comprises of states like in the United States, each state has its executive, legislative and judicial branches and one central government consisting of representatives from every state. According to Banning (2010), the states have powers to pass, put into effect and interpret laws provided they do so within the confines of the national constitution. However, these laws, which include traffic rules, only apply to the specific state they are passed. Similarly, the federal government also can make, enforce and interpret laws. But in this case, the rules established by the federal government applies to all the states irrespective of whether a state has some laws that may have a differing opinion.

Firstly, the nationalist Madison was entirely convinced by the articles on the need for a stronger national government (Hamilton et al. 2017). In this light, it is clear that opinions of Madison about the new government were not widely shared. In the letter that he presented to Washington, he had illustrated candidly his views about the characteristics of the state and governmental relations that he wanted to be considered in the new constitution. His significant opinions formed the basis of an argument that the article’s had specific weaknesses. In this regard, he was able to reveal that there were injustices in the jurisdiction of the new constitution. Besides, there were multiplicity and mutability of laws within the state level that he noted (Hamilton et al. 2017).

Besides Madison’s argument as Publius, under this, he had to stop and do away with some of his arguments and contributions he was making to federalism (Jay et al. 2018). It is because of the new phase that the movement of the stronger union had developed. Moreover, most of his arguments about the union had been dealt with at Philadelphia. This made him have a perception that his remaining task was to present the united from for adoption by the marshal support.

According to the republic compound, there was a need to accommodate Madison’s contribution, position, and elements which he had set in the federalism during the nationalist days (Jay et al. 2018). This is regarding the issue of the bank that has been witnessed. Madison was jumping from one state and national relations to another.

In conclusion, Madison had a more significant contribution to the federalism. As earlier discussed, much evidence supported his case. Furthermore, ‘Federalist No. 51’ was a paper done by James Madison, enhancing means by which there can be appropriate creation of checks and balances in the government. Besides, advocating for the separation of powers in the US national government. Madison’s ideas were vital immediately after the implementation of the new constitution.

References

1. Banning, L. (1998). The sacred fire of liberty: James Madison and the founding of the federal republic. Cornell University Press.
2. Hamilton, A., Madison, J., Jay, J., & Trees, A. (2017). The Federalist Papers. Race Point Publishing.
3. Jay, J., Hamilton, A., & Madison, J. (2018). The federalist papers. BoD-Books on Demand.

In regard to basic human rights, life, liberty, education, and freedom of expression often come to mind as a few of mankind’s fundamental entitlements. The United States of America, in particular, prides itself in its ability to be one of the few countries that still allows its citizens to practice many of these rights without fear of persecution or discrimination. Even so, these rights are becoming harder to come by and even more difficult to identify, even in the States, as division arises among parties and belief systems. Healthcare, for example, has stirred much turmoil in the United States as proper medical care is necessary to sustain life, but the expense is not something that many citizens can bare. Lawmakers and legislators have been trying to solve this dilemma for years, as they struggle to find a balance between proper coverage and affordability for all. This proposes another question: Is it constitutional for the government to require healthcare insurance for all United States citizens and penalize those who do not participate – specifically when evaluating the terms of the Commerce Clause and the Taxing and Spending Clause? In doing so, does pressuring States into compliance by threatening to minimize Medicaid funding violate the principles of federalism and ultimately compromise the American standard of healthcare? These questions, as well as many others, boggled the minds of citizens and congressmen and women alike, which quickly brought this issue to the forefront of the United States Supreme Court. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the United States Supreme Court justices reviewed these concerns and ultimately ruled in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, even though some still doubt whether this was the proper solution to the healthcare crisis in America, especially with the recent development of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

By passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2012, the United States Supreme Court justices hoped to aid in the process of providing all United States citizens with proper and affordable medical insurance. However, doing so may have come at a greater cost than benefit. When lowering the cost of insurance for all, an affordable healthcare system would essentially require each working member to contribute and participate. In foreseeing the functionality of programs such as these, Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution outlines several clauses, one of which being the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power possessed by Congress that allows them “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” (U.S. Constitution). Richard Epstein of the Hoover Institute makes a strong argument as to the true intent of the Founding Fathers when the Commerce Clause was written versus the reinterpretation that followed the New Deal. Epstein claims that the Affordable Care Act should not even be considered when looked at under the scope of constitutionality. However, given the context of the Commerce Clause post-New Deal, he states that the emerging “jurisprudence…introduced a set of unprincipled (but fine-grained) distinctions that turned the law into a mass of linguistic absurdities that should lead ordinary people to question the collective sanity of the legal profession” (Epstein). This shift in understanding has caused waves across many court cases even prior to this one, including National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937), U.S. v. Darby (1941), and Wickard v. Filburn (1942), which has only continued to distort the true definition of the Commerce Clause. Furthermore, when it comes to the opinions of the justices in regards to the relationship between the Commerce Clause and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the split interpretation caused a divide among these highly respected individuals. Does the Commerce Clause have the power to legislate the individual mandate? According to Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, it did; but on the opposing side stood Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court justices did not find the Commerce Clause in support of the individual mandate that was to be imposed via this act; however, Article 1 Section 8 still bears another legality that could potentially support the proposed solution to healthcare.

The Taxing and Spending Clause states, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States…” (U.S. Constitution). When reviewing the clause in support or in opposition of the case, the vote of the Justices appeared to flip, with the exception of Chief Justice Roberts, which ultimately ruled that the “Individual Mandate penalty is a tax for the purposes of the Constitution’s Taxing and Spending Clause and is a valid exercise of Congressional authority” (National Federation). The idea is that the penalty for opting out of healthcare coverage was not comparable to willful offenses that result in fines for unlawful acts. This opinion was held across all justices in favor of the Taxing and Spending Clause upholding the policies of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The justices believed that even those who choose not to purchase healthcare still actively participate in the market, and therefore should still be regulated as such. On the opposition to this (Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito), it is argued that since the payment is written as a “penalty,” it would violate the originality of the Act as it was written to say ‘tax’, although that criticism was outweighed by the majority.

The ruling in favor of the Taxing and Spending Clause to support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (mainly due to the interpretation of the Taxing and Spending Clause) should not be valid. My personal argument lies in the flaws behind the idea that the taxes instituted on individuals who choose not to participate in the program would not be considered as a willful offense resulting in a fine. If an individual mandate is what is at hand, then this must be applied to every individual. Only when an individual does not comply should some type of penalty be charged, which would be due to participating in a knowingly unlawful action. Whether this is right or wrong is a discussion of morality, but the fact is the case holds a very strong emphasis in individual mandate. If health insurance is to be required by law for all American citizens, then it should not be considered a tax but rather a penalty for those who do not choose to comply with such a law, as Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito touched on. Simply creating a ‘loop hole’ via the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by claiming the fee for opting out as a ‘tax’ for those not wanting to comply with the law should not be sufficient for neither justice nor citizen. This would then not be covered by the Taxing and Spending Clause, and therefore the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would have very little constitutional support left otherwise.

Beyond the relationships between the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the clauses mentioned in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, states feared that they were being unconstitutionally coerced into the federal healthcare reforms due to the threat of Medicaid funding withdrawals if they did not comply with the expansion. This walked the fragile border of breaking the bounds of federalism, a founding component of the Constitution. Separation of federal and state government is clearly illustrated in many of the US’s original governing documents. Where that separation lies, however, brings great dispute in many areas, and healthcare is no exception. Nicholas Bagley of The Yale Law Journal evaluates this in relation to healthcare and identifies some of the major issues, one of which being that states cannot always provide the coverage they would like to due to lack of support for health reform and other limitations. For example, Hawaii and Massachusetts fundamentally support universal healthcare programs, but have had trouble reaching success because “the states do not have the same fiscal capacity as the federal government” and “a federal law—the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)—bars states from adopting the most expedient laws to expand coverage” (Bagley). This is why many like Bagley claim that “a national solution was appropriate—even necessary” (Bagley); the federal government was going to have to step in if healthcare reform was going to move anywhere. In implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Medicaid funding was to be cut in any state that did not comply with the expansion suggested. This threatened federalism, as once again, the federal government may have been overstepping its boundaries in directing the states in their healthcare reform actions. Chief Justice Roberts, with Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, ultimately concluded that the elimination of Medicaid funding if the state(s) refuse to agree to the expansion plan was an unconstitutional threat. Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor disagreed, as they held the belief that “the use of federal funds is not confined to spending programs as first launched” (National Federation). It is important to note that in continuation of this decision, the justices did discuss that if the threat of cancelled Medicaid funding was no longer present, the Act could still be deemed constitutional in its Medicaid expansion plans. This pleased Chief Justice Roberts, as well as Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kaygan, and Sotomayor, as it appeared to remove any fear impulse that might impact a state and could stand as a plausible exercise of Congress’s permitted power under the Spending Clause. This remedy did not please Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito as that power should remain in Congress and the Court is not in the position to revise the document as proposed. Personally, I believe that is exclusively Congress’s power as well, but otherwise, I would have agreed with this ruling as approved.

While there will always be the concrete, law is ever changing. The constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was confirmed in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. However, an overturn may soon be in store as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017) eliminated the individual mandate tax, which is a key component to the success of the proposed healthcare program. This uncertainty of the future of United States healthcare is evaluated by Paul Larkin, Jr., Rumpel Senior Legal Research Fellow. He states, “what the Supreme Court settled in 2012 Congress unsettled in 2017 when it passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That new law eliminated the tax on which the Supreme Court had relied when it upheld Obamacare under Congress’s authority to impose taxes” (Larkin). His concern is simple: the only ground that maintained the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was now gone, so can the Act still be accepted as law? Defenders may choose to argue that Congress still holds the power to regulate the healthcare market, but it is unlikely that regulation will provide as the entire basis for healthcare reform. With the introduction of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, many states were once again concerned with the constitutionality and overall legitimacy of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Larkin continued his research into the effects that the changes in law would have on healthcare reform by looking into how individual states were reacting to the new found questions surrounding the Act. He noticed that Idaho took a very unique approach: simply ignore the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Governor Butch Otter authorized the state insurance department to permit healthcare not compliant with that of the Act, which the department then published via bulletin to release the offers to their residents. Of course, citizens were still given the original option that complied with that of the Supreme Court ruling, but other choices were available as well to supply health coverage. However, compliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not optional, and the Supreme Court can easily impose the Article 6 Supremacy Clause and overturns the governor’s efforts, which inevitable cancels out all of Idaho’s previous revisions to their healthcare structure. Larkin’s research also revealed less dramatic efforts that challenged the ruling of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius by Texas, which was to “litigate the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the standard and proper manner” (Larkin). With the support of several other states and governors, Texas asked their state court to declare the Act no longer constitutional under the complaint that the individual mandate is a critical part of the Act and once the tax for nonparticipants is no longer required (which began in January 2019), it will no longer be covered by the Taxing and Spending Clause, therefore deeming it unconstitutional.

Healthcare reform is something America is in desperate need of, but unfortunately, I do not believe we have found the solution yet. Especially with the ever-evolving dynamic of the law, the legality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act can never be confidently confirmed and therefore should not be implemented into our law, as uncertainty still surrounds the document. With new laws and proposals every single day, this Act is simply not strong enough to maintain over the course of time. Already the noncompliance tax has been challenged, which was a major basis for the individual mandate and pushing point for the Justices in their decision processes. The rulings of the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius seemingly compromise the Constitution, specifically when regarding the Taxing and Spending Clause. The Court must be careful not to abuse its power, and unfortunately, I believe tricky word play between ‘penalty’ and ‘tax’ have fooled the nation into agreeing that this will somehow create an equal healthcare system. The Act also threatens the heart of federalism and challenges both the power of state and Congress. With the threat of Medicaid funding withdrawals, states were at risk of being coerced into this Act, which is a fear-based strategy that is unconstitutional and could lead to greater damage of the healthcare system. Proposals to remove the threat entirely did help alleviate some tension within the document, but it was questioned whether or not the Court even had the power to make such revisions. Even so, the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius Supreme Court ruling perhaps introduced one of the most controversial healthcare documents to date. Whether it lasts is to be determined, but it is certain that we must comply for now.

The struggle between state weed authorization and the authority national marijuana embargo regarding the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) has built a federalism predicament when the obligations of state officials conform to mention, or government guidelines are unclear (Schwartz, 2013). Current federalism is not able to even tell us all if the local law enforcement officers that confront an actual person in state-approved custody of weed must arrest the person in addition to grabbing the marijuana (Schwartz, 2013). Anti-commandeering is bungling at telling us all whether a new federally made duty to be able to arrest in addition to seize the marijuana holder is impermissible confiscation, allowing general use, or allowable preemption, let alone solution the more complex federalism questions presented by express marijuana legalization (Schwartz, 2013).

Alternatively, a solid preemption approach, while proficient in constructing reliable outcomes within the theory, would certainly entail the virtual abandonment of the anti-commandeering and associated with the jurisdictive implementation of federalism more typically, using the irreverent significant building from the ‘governmental precautions of federalism’ principle (Schwartz, 2013). This process will be faithful to consensus principles associated with federalism that should control the agreement of judges and academics on the two sides in the debate concerning judicial versus political safeguards of federalism (Schwartz, 2013). An anti-commandeering clear assertion rule, when applied to be able to the CSA, requires that state officials be given broad latitude to follow the mandates of their states’ legalization laws and have no compelled obligations to be able to enforce federal law over and above an obligation to refrain from active obstruction of government officers (Schwartz, 2013).

The extent of Congress’s strength to command state-established compliance with the CSA can be viewed as whenever such a great amendment to the CSA is below serious congressional consideration a thing that may never occur provided the present political trend (Schwartz, 2013). Marijuana legalization by the states presents the most pushing and complicated federalism problem of the time (Schwartz, 2013). The legislature has undeniable authority to govern individuals within an express, even when acting out legal rights or duties contrary to be able to that state’s laws and rules (Schwartz, 2013). The power of the administration beneath the commerce offer to be able to exclude the harvest, proposal, and even basic ownership over marijuana, whether typically the infuriating conduct crosses state outlines, is set up, within the Controlled Substances Work (CSA), congress worked out of which regulatory power immediately upon the men and women (Schwartz, 2013). Additionally, considering that some states have legalized medical or perhaps also ‘recreational’ marijuana (Schwartz, 2013).

The obligation of individual states’ parliaments, administrative authorities, plus courts to interact directly together with the federal weed ban is tremendously equivocal (Schwartz, 2013). Internal express administration developments have been tossed into misperception simply by ostensible conflicts between their state’s authorization laws in accumulation to typically the CSA (Schwartz, 2013). Express governors have refused to implement duly put into law state laws for concern that their subordinates may end up being prosecuted by government authorities(Schwartz, 2013). County bureaucrats usually sue them, declaring sanctions to obstruct the observance of state laws they deem to discord together with federal policy (Schwartz, 2013).

Federalism is a division of power between local and state governments. Under global emergencies, the local and state governments are the first in-line responders to tackle the crisis.

Federalism expects the federal and state governments to respond to disasters such as floods, fires, earthquakes, or pandemics, for instance, the 2005 Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and the 2020 COVID-19 in the United States. Federalism plays a vital role in U.S. public health; it oversees the response to the public and the state’s spending during a disaster. During disasters, the Federal government reserves the power to declare a national emergency and create a standby temporary order just like the “Stay at home” order given during the Coronavirus Pandemic.

The 2005 disaster, Hurricane Katrina, was the largest and most severe natural disaster to have fallen in the United States, precisely New Orleans. The severity of this disaster was measured by the degree of damage, the location of the impact zone, and the impact it had on people’s lives. When Hurricane Katrina hit, many factors contributed to catastrophe such as incomplete evacuation in advance of the storm and poor communication. The government was not prepared to counter the disaster of Hurricane Katrina (Leonard, et, al. 2). While watching the Houston Public Media documentary on Hurricane Katrina, I learned that the local and state officials failed to plan before the storm hit, the U.S military waited too long to take actions during the storm, and the government differed to the poor and black American victims. According to the article, is federalism the reason for policy failure in Hurricane Katrina, “Katrina has been cast as a failure of federal initiative and organization, notwithstanding the inherently intergovernmental nature of disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation in the US,” which explains the flawed government in responding to the people during the emergencies (Birkland, et al).

However, the weather forecast warned federal government officials and everyone about Hurricane Katrina, yet the government failed the prepare for the disaster. Some of the federal failures are confusion about what to do, failure to be prepared, communication breakdown, supply failure, and indecision. The federal officials were not proactive when the storm hit, as they were not trained and there was confusion in the deployments and command structure; FEMA- the Federal Emergency Management Agency, had officials with little to no experience in handling disasters like Katrina. As a result of the storm, there was a complete communication breakdown; in the documentary, the Chief of the U.S National Guard, Legen Steven Blum, gave an excuse as to why people were not evacuated on time, he responded by saying people could not call 911 to ask for help as the flood caused a power outage.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a contagious disease that affects both the respiratory and vascular systems of the body. On January 15, 2020, the United States first recorded its first victim of the coronavirus at the Province Regional Medical Center, according to a Houston public media documentary. The president and the state failed to control the spread of the virus; just after five days of confirming the first patient, 32 more people tested positive because of the lack of control; the government was too slow to act. The government failure started from the late availability of testing kits; the WHO provided some testing kits to the U.S. but the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) decided not to utilize them, instead, they ordered some bad test kits. When the first case of coronavirus was recorded, the Trump administration tried to downplay the severity of the virus and suspended the WHO; they assured the public that it was a minor issue and there was no cause to panic. If the president did not suspend the WHO, the cases that tested positive would not be a lot. According to the article, Challenges to Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations and Takeaways Amid the COVID-19 Experience, the major failure of the federal government was misinformation and lack of direction in dealing with COVID-19.

Work Cited

1. Benton J. Edwin. “Challenges to Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations and Takeaway Amid the COVID-19 Experience.” The American Review of Public Administration, 15 Jul. 2020 journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0275074020941698
2. Birkland, Thomas, et al. “Is Federalism the Reason for Policy Failure in Hurricane Katrina?”The Journal of Federalism, Vol. 38, issue 4, 29 Jul. 2008 academic.oup.com/publius/article/38/4/692/1853488
3. Leonard Herman, et al. “Preparing for and Responding to Katrina-class Disturbance in the United States.” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, Vol. 3, issues= 2, 8 Mar. 2006 www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/research- initiatives/crisisleadership/files/katrina_prelude.pdf
4. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0275074020941698
5. https://academic.oup.com/publius/article/38/4/692/1853488
6. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/research-initiatives/crisisleadership/files/katrina_prelude.pdf
7. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/research-initiatives/crisisleadership/files/katrina_prelude.pdf

Texas tends to not restrict an individual’s right, however; the Texas government in the past seemed to always restrict an individual from gambling. The first Texas constitution banned all types of gambling even though many citizens seemed to enjoy the culture of gambling. The Texas ban on gambling was very strict. Any bet on random chance and any form of gambling was part of the definition of illegal gambling. The ban on gambling stayed relatively the same for quite some time. The first change in attitude toward gambling happened in 1933 when betting on horse racing was made legal. This only lasted for 4 years when horse race betting was made illegal again but made legal again in 1989 in Texas.

The Texas government in the past has attempted to shut down tribal casinos and boat casinos. The Texas ban on casinos was quite imposing and affected tribal lands that had casinos. When the Texas authorities shut down many of the tribe’s gambling sites, the tribes took Texas to Federal courts, where Texas won the right to shut down many of the tribe’s gambling sites. One of the few legal Tribal casinos now is the Lucky Eagle. The Lucky Eagle is located down near the Mexico border and is still operating.1

Texas has also restricted casinos on water in the past. While the Texan government tried to shut down boat casinos, the boat casinos claimed to be operating games in international waters and outside Texas laws and jurisdiction, Texas lawmakers combated this by requiring boat casinos to stay afloat for 24 hours and be docked at a foreign port. This worked quite well to some degree and many Texans would rather cross state borders to gamble than visit a boat casino in Texas.

Although the Texas government tried to wage war against gambling and attempted to push gambling sites outside of state borders, Texans who wish to gamble can simply cross state borders and travel to Louisiana and Oklahoma where gambling laws are less restrictive.1 While the Texas government can ban casinos, gamblers still find a way to continue their activity. Gamblers who still wish to gamble can still visit the last Tribal casinos called the Lucky Eagle and water casinos operating on international waters, and gamblers can even cross state borders into Louisiana or Oklahoma where gambling is less restrictive.

The main reason why Texas and Louisiana have such different laws on gambling is because gambling is because gambling is mainly seen as a state issue. For example, Hawaii and Utah completely outlaw all forms of gambling while Oklahoma and Louisiana are less restrictive on gambling. It is up to the states to decide whether or not to outlaw gambling. Some states have a total ban on gambling and other states have no ban on gambling. The federal government doesn’t have much say on the legality of gambling and leaves it mainly to the states, but the federal government may get involved if an interstate gambling crime is involved. If gambling is illegal in the state and wagering information is sent through phone lines or the internet, then the federal government may get involved. 18 USC 1084 is used by the federal government to help criminalize interstate gambling if gambling is illegal in that state. This is one of the few things that the state gets help from the federal government to help prosecute gamblers if the state is hard on gambling. It seems that the state government and federal government are working well together. If the state is hard on gambling, then the federal government can help regulate interstate gambling crimes if the gambling is across state lines. This seems to be most similar to cooperative federalism where the state government and the federal government have shared powers regarding gambling.

It seems that policy areas regarding gambling have changed over the years in Texas. At first, Texas outlawed all forms of gambling and waged war on gambling, fighting Tribal casinos and boat casinos with success but unable to stop Texans from crossing state borders to Louisiana to gamble. But after some time, the Texas government slowly lessened its restrictions on gambling, first by allowing betting at horse racing events, then giving licenses for charitable gambling with a constitutional amendment in 1980 and later creating the Texas State lottery as income for the state. The federal side of gambling policy has not changed much. The federal government used to make sports betting illegal but the US Supreme Court ruled the federal ban on sports betting unconstitutional, which the US Supreme Court ruling helped make gambling policies up to the states. The federal government also passed 18 USC 1084 helped states criminalize interstate gambling crimes. The federal government seems to have gotten more involved and more willing to help the states when gambling is illegal in the states.

What is interesting is that Texas is now slowly lessening the restrictions on gambling realizing the potential of legalizing gambling and taking advantage of the income received from legalizing gambling. What may have helped Texan legislatures see gambling as a money maker for the state is most likely looking at Louisiana successfully taxing riverboat casinos as well as the Texas state lottery. The Texas state lottery makes about 4 billion dollars with roughly 1.3 billion dollars to pay for education. The income from the state lottery may not be much but the state lottery is still income that can offset some costs. The state lottery is helping Texas pay for schools and education and it seems that recently Texas legislatures have been noticing how much money could be made from allowing gambling into the state. Louisiana’s taxes on gambling from riverboats have contributed over 2 billion dollars to the state. The Louisiana gambling industry has also created 14,000 jobs and 40% of the Louisiana State Police is funded by riverboat taxes. Lawmakers in Texas are taking notice of this and have thought of legalizing gambling and casinos to create more income for the state.

Recent events have made the need for new revenue more important than ever. With the recent school funding overhaul, Texas needs a new source of revenue. Property taxes have been cut and many Texan lawmakers are reluctant to raise property takes to match the school funding overhaul. Roland Gutierrez stated that “Texas is losing billions of dollars annually to neighboring states where full-scale gambling with a slot machine and table games is permitted.” Lawmakers in Texas are acknowledging the potential for a gambling tax and have drafted up TX HB3043. The bill would recognize the operation of 12 licensed casinos in Texas within counties that have approved the casinos. This bill and the state lottery show that Texas’s negative attitude toward gambling is changing slowly. The bill was thought to be unlikely to be passed because most republican legislatures and Governor Abbot are biased against casinos. But now that the Texas legislatures need to find a new source of revenue to pay for the public school overhaul, this bill is likely to pass to help offset the cost.

The Texas state lottery already proved to be effective and helped Texas with financing public schools, but it may not be enough. The new public school funding overhaul without new sources of revenue is disastrous. The new public school funding passed alongside the passing of lowering property taxes is likely to put a strain on the Texas budget. Losing one source of income without creating a new source of income while also increasing spending is not the best decision that our legislatures have drafted. But since this is what our legislatures decided to do, we now need some way of paying for the new public school finance reform that is sustainable and likely to pass. Increasing property taxes is unlikely as Texan legislatures and voters are unlikely to support an increase in property taxes. The state lottery is helping but not by much as most of the money that is gained in the state lottery is given back to the winners with only 27% going to education and the 27% is only about 1 billion dollars. The Texas lottery by itself is not enough to pay for the new public school reforms. The best solution to get new revenue is to legalize gambling and tax it. Following Louisiana’s example by legalizing and taxing a gambling industry will not fully solve the problem but will add a new source of revenue for the state. Louisiana has enjoyed much wealth and economic impact from the legalization of gambling, so it may be wise for Texas to follow that path. Legalizing and taxing the gambling industry is a hidden potential in the state of Texas that legislatures have simply not tapped into. Many Texans already cross state borders to gamble in Louisiana or Oklahoma and many Texans gamble recreationally in a legal social setting. Legalizing casinos will allow Texas to tap into a new source of income without increasing property taxes. While it will not fully finance public schools, it will offset the cost.

Bibliography

1. Louisiana Casino Association. ‘Louisiana Casino Association.’ Louisiana Economic Impact | LA Casino Association. Accessed July 29, 2019. https://www.casinosofla.com/how-louisiana-wins.asp.
2. Gambling Online. Texas Legal Gambling – Legal Poker / Casinos in Texas. Accessed July 29, 2019. https://www.gamblingonline.com/laws/texas/.
3. KCBD. ‘Is the Texas Lottery Funding Education?’ Https://www.kcbd.com. December 15, 2014. Accessed July 30, 2019. https://www.kcbd.com/story/14579932/kcbd-investigates-is-the-tx-lottery-really-funding-education/.
4. Versus Texas ‘Gambling: Is Gambling Illegal in Texas – or under Federal Law?’ Varghese Summersett PLLC | Fort Worth Criminal Defense Attorneys. Accessed July 29, 2019. https://www.versustexas.com/gambling/.
5. Rebekah Allen. ‘Can Texas Afford the School Funding Overhaul? Some Lawmakers Say Not without New Revenue.’ Dallas News. May 27, 2019. Accessed July 29, 2019. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-legislature/2019/05/26/can-texas-afford-school-funding-overhaul-lawmakers-say-not-without-new-revenue.
6. Devin O’Connor. ‘Texas Casino Bill Introduced Would Permit 12 Destination Resort Venues.’ Casino.org. March 06, 2019. Accessed July 30, 2019. https://www.casino.org/news/texas-casino-bill-introduced-would-permit-12-destination-resort-venues.

Today’s modern world is mainly divided into two putative political systems and those are federal and unitary systems. Both of these systems have their unique political structures along with their unique styles of functioning processes. Federalism is a kind of a system in which states and provinces share power with a national government. Such as United states of America as it functions according to the principles of federalism. On the other hand, the unitary government system is a sovereign state governed as a single party in which the central government is supreme and the administrative divisions only exercise the powers delegated to them by the central government. Subdivisional units are formed and abolished, and the central government may extend and restrict their powers. The United Kingdom, for example, is a unitary state. All the countries base their faith on either of these political systems considering the advantages and disadvantages, while some countries have no options of choosing their own system, as the government itself declares the state of the country, whether it will be governed mainly by government or people of the country will also be involved in the decision making of the country. To find out more about these two putative political structures, this study will further discuss on how both federal and unitary political systems differ from each other and what are the advantages and disadvantages of these systems. This paper will also look into different countries which support these systems and why they support them. Lastly, it will discuss on whether unitary is a good form of political government or federal.

The state comprises the various institutions of government, the bureaucracy, the military, police, courts, social security system and so forth. It very well may be contended that government is ‘a part of the state’. At the end of the day, ‘the state characterises the political network of which government is the official branch. Government is the key to characterise unitary or federal government. The meaning of the word govern is to assert the authority over others. The action of government in its broadest sense involves the power of the government to practice the decision making and to ensure that they are being followed. In other words, an administration comprises of foundations answerable for settling on aggregate choices for society. All the more barely, government alludes to the top political level inside such foundations.

After this concise data, unitary and national governments can be defined. Unitary can be characterised that sway lies only with the central government; sub-national authorities, regardless of whether territorial or local, may make strategy just as execute it yet they do as such by authorisation of the centre. In contrast to unitary government, federal government is the nation dependent on federalism. Federalism is the standard of sharing power among focal and state governments. On account of the division of sovereignty between the centre and the outskirts, from a certain point of view, neither degree of government can infringe upon the forces of the other. Any political system that places this thought into practice is known as a federation. Every system has their strengths and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages, in the same manner federal and unitary government systems have their own sets of pros and cons too.

Advantages of the Federal Government System

Federal systems assures the protection against tranny. As the structure of the system is in itself divided into national and state governments. Federal system is, as we know, the most dominant system in today’s generation. It is because, the history has taught us how the other form of governments could get, such as dictatorship or monarchy. To prevent these government formation federal is the solution.

Devision of power destroys all the possibilities of formation of centralised power, hence, preventing from the excessive power of one party. Which sometimes tends to get corrupted.

One of the major aspects of the federal government systems is the citizen participation. Since the power is not centralised, citizens have some influence on the lawmaking and government policies.

When the responsibilities are distributed amongst the states, it allows the states to look into their own problems. This is a good way of using the resources and manpower efficiently and effectively.

Disadvantages of the Federal Government System

• Inequalities between different states. For instance, rather than training financing all through the nation being the equivalent, since it is a state issue, a few states will spend more, per capita, on instruction than different states, causing what could be viewed as a disparity. The same goes for different things, too, for example, taxes, social insurance projects, and welfare programs.
• The blockage of nationalist policies by states. States can battle against the presence of certain national laws by testing them in court, or making a special effort to not authorise those national laws, or even intentionally discouraging authorisation of national laws.
• Racing to the bottom. One contention given is that states will rival each other in an oppositional way, by diminishing the measure of advantages they provide for welfare beneficiaries contrasted with, state, a neighbouring state, persuading the nuisances to go to the neighbouring state, in this manner decreasing their welfare costs significantly more. This decrease of state advantages to poor has been considered the race to the bottom.

Advantages of Unitary Government System

It is a legislature that can move quickly providing decisive legislative and all the other aspects. Because control rests halfway inside a unitary system, there are less defers engaged with the handling of a choice. In many governments with this system, the intensity of settling on a choice lies with one authoritative unit or even only one individual. That makes it conceivable to be responsive at whatever point there is a risk presented, regardless of whether it is normal, political, or some other issue that must be tended to.

It is a legislature that is less expensive to run. Unitary system may assign certain forces to managerial units, however the last position still rests inside the one government system. That dispenses with the different degrees of legislative organisation that exist inside different systems. Less levels of administration makes less formality to explore, which means lower in general operational costs. Whenever run proficiently, the regulatory taxation rate of the populace under a unitary government can be lower.

It is a legislature that can advance a feeling of unity. Within a unitary system, loyalties are not partitioned. In the United States, for instance, individuals may wind up being faithful to their state or their locale and the government may play an optional job. Since unitary systems make a brought together government that doesn’t make covering locale, a feeling of solidarity can be advanced by the legislature all through society. This offers the capability of decreasing extremity.

Disadvantages of Unitary System

It is a government the can become tyrannical. Not exclusively can authorities or authoritative bodies be effectively controlled inside a unitary system, they can be utilized to misuse the populace. Since there is a lot of intensity, regularly political, that is put into a unitary system, this type of government is one of the in all probability that prompts oppression.

It is a government that remains in the control of a select few. Within a unitary system, there may be national pride, but there are fewer opportunities to get involved with the actual process of governing. The average person is rarely given the opportunity to contact government officials in a meaningful way. If policy changes occur, there are few options available to the average person to create change within their government. Over time, this can lead to high levels of distrust that may eventually cause societal disruption.

It is an administration that remaining parts in the control of a chosen few. Inside a unitary system, there might be national pride, yet there are less chances to engage with the real procedure of administering. The normal individual is infrequently allowed the chance to contact government authorities in an important manner. On the off chance that approach changes happen, there are barely any alternatives accessible to the normal individual to make change inside their administration..

It is an administration which disregards nearby issues. centralised system manages a ‘major picture’ situations. From an administration point of view, that implies residential needs are frequently yielded to deal with outside necessities and dangers. Since the intensity of the administration must be assigned, networks may end up without portrayal when neighbourhood emergencies emerge. Self-administering is regularly energised, however with no power, it can at present be hard to find and utilise assets that might be important for endurance.

Decentralisation

Decentralisation is, quite possibly, the dominating political pattern within recent time period. Major devolutions of power from national to subnational levels have happened in different nations, for example, Africa (e.g., Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana), Asia (e.g., Bangladesh, India), Europe (e.g., Belgium, Britain, France, Italy, and Spain), and Latin America (e.g., Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico). A few new majority rule governments have developed with express sacred assurances for sub-state specialists (e.g., Russia and the European Union). In the interim, older federal polities such as Germany, India, the United States, and Switzerland continue intact.

We know about no vote based system that has moved from the established status of ‘federalism’ to that of its opposite, ‘unitarism.’ As an outcome, most enormous majority rule governments are currently naturally administrative. To be sure, over 56% of the world’s majority rule residents live in government nations at the start of the twenty-first century. In addition to a political fact on the ground, decentralisation is an idea, and an increasingly popular one at that. At mid-century, the three dominant models of development—socialism, export-oriented industrialisation, and import substitution—all featured a leading role for the national state. Presently, the centre has moved to nearby level activities, smaller scale endeavour, NGOs, and the encouraging of majority rule establishments. The present vogue of decentralisation is resounded in scholastic work by most financial analysts and political researchers. Undoubtedly, dissipated proof proposes that scholastics, legislators, and policymakers from over the political range have held onto decentralisation as a key to great administration. While the Old Right safeguarded the privileges of the express, the New Right is stridently antistatist, leaning toward neighbourhood majority rule government, enterprising private enterprise, and intrinsically ensured property rights. On the Left, the centralist model related with communism and socialism is progressively enduring an onslaught. In its place one discovers reestablished enthusiasm for vote based system, responsibility, resident cooperation, common society, social capital, and thought. Therefore, the intrigue of decentralisation cuts over the standard left-right cleavage.

Conclusion

The idea of being competitive has bought no good to the countries nor to the whole world. The history has witnessed the competition nature of industrialisation, which resulted into a nightmare for the world, caused blood baths. Industrialisation was basically competition between countries. Competition of possessing more power (power was arms, machinery, forces, and all the other possible goods a country could produce). Much has been written about the putative virtues of federal and unitary political system government, but little empirical testing of the impact of such systems on the quality of governance has been conducted. Do federal or unitary systems promote better social, political and economic outcomes? In each case, there is room for doubt about the practical impact of federalism on governance. In most cases, a strong empirical relationship between unitarism and good governance obtains, to the extent that these constitutional structures make a difference, unitary systems appear to hold distinct advantages over federal ones. Although the world leaders United states upholds the federal government system it is not necessarily the most fruitful kind of governance, in reality, unitary political system provides better opportunities in many of the aspects, hence, it is a better political system.

References

1. Heywood, H. (1999), Political Theory: An Introduction, MacMillan Press Ltd., London.
2. Hague, R. and Harrop, M. (2001), Comparative Government and Politics: Introduction, Palgrave, Hampshire.