Category: Federalism

One way that devolution in the UK differs from federalism in the USA is through the different levels of entrenchment. In the UK, devolved bodies rely on parliament for their existence. Due to doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, parliament maintains the right to dissolve the bodies, such as when Northern Ireland’s virtual autonomy within the UK was ended when the British government restored direct rule in 1972, abolishing the Northern Ireland parliament, Stormont. However, US federalism is entrenched under the 10th amendment, making it an incredibly difficult system to change, shown by the rigorous amendment process, requiring approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. The fact that there have only ever been 33 total amendments to the US constitution shows that the level of entrenchment of US federalism is much stronger than that of the UK devolution.

Another difference is that of the varying levels of power in each ‘unit’, found in devolution, but not in federalism. Devolution in the UK allows differing levels of power and autonomy for the different areas within the nation-state, for example, the difference in power between Scotland and Wales. Comparatively, federalism in the US requires each areastate to have the same power, not making one state have more power and abilities than another.

The origin of the power is also a difference between the two systems. In the UK, devolution is decentralization of powers by the central authority to lower levels, where all power originated from the central government in London. However, federal powers in the US are constitutionally divided, and there is a covenant between the central authority and the state in the division of powers in federalism. Certain powers are given to the national government alone, some to the state governments, and some are shared, making the states somewhat equal to the national government. Comparatively, in the UK, Parliament is sovereign, so each ‘unit’ only has power due to the approval of Parliament.

One difference between the legislative powers of the UK Parliament and the US Congress is the equality of powers between the houses. In the UK, the House of Lords and the House of Commons have unequal levels of power. The Commons has supreme legislative power- the chamber proposes and passes laws, and can stop bills from being passed into law, but the House of Lords can only delay a Bill for up to one year, due to the Parliament Act 1949, and even that power has limitations. This can be explained through the structural political theory. Comparatively, in the US, the House of Senate and House of Representatives are equal in the constitution, so there is no division of legislative power. For a bill to be passed, it must be agreed on by both branches.

A further difference is that of the power of the purse. In the US, it starts off with the President’s proposal to Congress, recommending funding levels for the next fiscal year. The House of Representatives has exclusive power to introduce legislation involving money, but has to be approved by both houses, just like any other legislation. So, despite the House of Representatives having power over the purse, the Senate still has significant power as they can reject the balance sheet and edit it, and send it to be debated again. Again, this can be explained through the structural political theory. However, in the UK, the House of Lords has no power over legislation and it stays mostly in one house. Budgets are usually set once every year, and are announced in the House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer after different departments have requested money for different operations. The power remains in parliament as they vote on the funding. If there is a failure then a vote of no confidence can be announced.

Another comparison that can be made, is that of the checks and balances within the legislation. Once again, here, the structural political theory can be applied. In the UK, Parliament is sovereign therefore has most control, and the only way to contest a law that has been passed is by implementing another law or debating it through the houses. In the US, law can be contested through presidential vetoes, in which another supermajority is needed in both houses to implement. Also, the US Supreme Court can nullify the law if it is seen to be unconstitutional, whereas the Supreme Court in the UK cannot, but can reach a conclusion on whether a law infringes on rights already given, such as the Human Rights Act, which does not incite parliament to change legislation.

Research Question

In the article ‘Public Performance and Management Review,’ the research question is “what can states do to maximize the performance of third-party implementers in the context of fiscal federalism?”

Theory

The theory included a review of the literature to enhance understanding of the weatherization assistance program. It also entailed concepts of devolution and fiscal federalism.

Hypothesis

H1. Contractors providing public services to states with greater policy-specific capacity will be more likely to meet performance goals than contractors providing services to states with less policy-specific capacity.

Research Design

The research design included the measurement of the variables of interest. For instance, the operationalization of the main concepts and the subsequent quantitative analysis was carried out by the use of semi-structured interviews. Purposive sampling was used to identify the states. Other components covered under the research design were the control variables and analytic techniques. The analytic techniques involved the application of the hierarchical model with random intercepts which formed the basis of testing relationships.

Flaws in Research Design Elements

Of the four elements, the most flawed was the research design. Research design elements are critical in determining the procedures to be used to answer the research questions or in testing the hypothesis. It is in research design that various components of the entire study are linked to ensure the actual implementation of the research. The first flaw entailed the sampling process. Even though the researcher pointed out that purposive sampling was used to identify the states, there were no criteria on how the interviewees were selected. The lack of a proper sampling process could affect the credibility of the research. The second flaw was that there was no comprehensive process to outline the data collection method. Despite using interviews to gather information from the state officers, the researcher did not give the rationale and criteria used for the compilation of the quantitative data which was entered in the tables. The only detail is that it was obtained through state energy officers and the department of energy. The implication for the omission is that the reliability of the study is affected. Finally, there is no clear identification of the research design used in the study. This signifies that another researcher cannot replicate the entire study.

Ways to Correct the Flaws

To correct the flaws, a systematic procedure should be applied to ensure that different elements of the methodology and design are included. The following are the necessary steps to correct the flaws.

• Step 1: Inclusion of the research methodology and philosophy. The research methodology should entail the use of mixed methods, i.e. the qualitative and quantitative approaches. The rationale is that the interviews mainly collect qualitative data which cannot be used to test the hypothesis.
• Step 2: Include a particular research design that was applied to the study and the timeframe for the data collected. In this case, a cross-sectional research design could form the basis of the research.
• Step 3: Identity the sample size and the sampling procedures to be applied. This will help in expounding the scope of the purposive sampling identified by the researcher.
• Step 4: Include the data collection method and the types of data to be collected. This will entail the primary data collected by the use of interviews and the secondary data obtained from the energy offices. Also, this step will entail the inclusion criteria for the secondary data. Also, the various variables to be used for the study will be identified at this stage.
• Step 5: Definition of the data analysis methods and rationale. This will then be followed by real data analysis and tests.

Federalism refers to a governance system that allows the sharing of power between the central government and other political units of the country. The U.S. is the major country that uses the federal system of government. The U.S. is a very big country. It operates under 50 regional governments of the states. There is a separation of power between these states. The federal government organizes the governance of the country. The U.S. is one of the oldest federal governments. It approved federalism on 17^th September 1787.

The American federal system of governance has undergone several changes. The fact that the U.S still maintains this system shows that the system must have various benefits. Some of the benefits include ensuring that the government remains close to the citizens of the country. However, federalism has various costs. Conflicts between the state and national government in the running of the United States is one of the major costs of federalism.

Federalism leads to the formation of small political units that help in the governance of the citizens of the country. In the U.S., states and counties are the small political units that help in the governance of the country. These political units have their own political leader. The governor is the political leader who helps in the governance of a state.

The leader is usually from within the state. Democratic nations usually ensure that citizens elect the political leader of the political unit. This helps in reducing the dominance of the majority in governance of the country. Therefore, federalism helps in increasing the liberty of the citizens of the nation.

Federalism leads to the formation of small governance units. The small units perform duties that the central authority would have performed. Education, security, and healthcare are some of the major services that state governments perform. Formation of small governance units makes it easy to govern a country with a large geographical area or population.

If the U.S. did not use federalism, it would have been very difficult to manage the country effectively. In addition, the local governance units are closer to the citizens. Therefore, they understand the problems in their areas. This makes it easy for them to choose and implement policies that would help in tackling the problems effectively (Kollman 25).

Nations strive to improve the patriotism of their citizens. This helps in improving the governance of the country. Federalism helps in improving the patriotism of the citizens of a country. It is a fact that people usually feel close to their hometowns or states. Federalism uses this loyalty to improve the patriotism of the citizens of a country by giving more power to the states. This enables it to improve the patriotism of the citizens of a country.

Federalism fosters the democratic governance of a country. It enables the government of various states to experiment with various policies. The state government can experiment with the policies since the effect of the policies would be limited. These experiments enable other states to implement the policies effectively. The successes or failures of the policies provide insights on how to implement the policies in their jurisdictions effectively.

However, the national government is not at liberty to experiment with policies. Failure of policies of the national government may have devastating effects on the well-being of the country. California is one of the states that has experimented with many policies. It is one of the first states to experiment with various environmental regulations. Other states and the federal government have studied the successes and failures of the policy in implementing various environmental regulations in their jurisdictions (Feeley and Rubin 26).

Federalism has several costs. It allocates various tasks to the national and state government. In some instances, this may lead to duplication of duties. Duplication of duties is the major limitation of federalism. It increases the inefficiency of the governance system. In addition, it increases bureaucracy.

It forces people to comply with regulations of the both the state government and the national government (Ward and Ward 188). In addition, federalism is a very expensive system of governance. It necessitates the election of many people to governance positions. This makes it difficult for poor countries to afford to use the system. In addition, increased bureaucracy of the federal system may lead to corruption.

Federalism empowers state governments. It enables them to create policies on various issues. This may hinder the creation of a national policy on various issues that affect the country. The policy of different states may be contradictory. This is despite the fact that the states are in one country. The U.S. highlights this scenario.

Despite the fact that the U.S. is one country, it does not have a unified policy on several issues. It has 50 policies that represent the 50 states. Lack of a unified policy creates confusion and makes it difficult to govern the nation. In addition, empowerment of state governments may lead to lack of accountability if policies fail. This is due to the fact that federalism leads to overlap of responsibilities of the national and state governments.

This may make the national and state government blame each other for the failure of the policies. Hurricane Katrina highlights the conflict of authority that may exist between the federal and state government. There was confusion between the federal government and the state government on who was responsible for the rescue operation. This delayed the rescue of people who were victims of the hurricane. It led to the loss of life of many people.

Federalism may lead to uneven distribution of the wealth of a nation. It is a fact that the distribution of natural resources, industries, and employment varies from one region to another. In addition, the state governments are only concerned about the development of their regions. Therefore, they may implement policies that may have adverse effects on other states. This may create conflicts between different states.

Governments of both developed and developing countries use the federalism. The success of this system has made many countries to contemplate using the system of governance. However, prior to implementing the system of governance, it is vital for the countries to consider the cost and benefits of the system.

They should ensure that federalism enhances the strengths of the country. More than 200 years of continuous alteration of the federal system of the U.S. has enabled it to tackle some of the problems that federalism faces. Therefore, the U.S. provides a good case study for other countries that strive to implement federalism. However, the U.S. has been unable to tackle all the problems of federalism.

Works Cited

Feeley, ‎ Malcolm and Edward Rubin. Federalism: Political identity and tragic compromise. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2008. Print.

Kollman, Ken. The American political system. New York: W W Norton & Company Incorporated, 2011. Print.

Ward, Ann and Lee Ward. The Ashgate research companion to federalism. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2013. Print.

Federalism was a constitutional topic in the United State that raised many arguments. Federalism is therefore defined as a coordination of the regime in which control and the influence of power is partitioned with an attempt to distribute it in the central government and the constituent supporting units.

This is therefore brought about by constitution when the territorial government wishes to establish centralized laws as the representation of the national legislature. In the United State, Federalism was a Constitutional topic even though it was not mentioned plainly in its Constitution but it was highly represented. This discussion therefore, focuses on the Federalism in the United State^[1].

To start with, there were Federalists and Anti-Federalists who had different argument concerning the U.S Constitution. The Federalists argued that division of powers was a way to protect the rights of the populace in that each division represented people’s aspects thus no division could assume a higher control. They also argued that it was difficult to list rights which would promote violation of the listed rights.

On the other hand the Anti-Federalist argued that the Constitution would cause excessive power held by the national regime at state government expense. They viewed that there would be excess powers left in the hand of the executive branch. Among all these issues, the Anti-Federalist focused much on the necessity of the bill of rights thus campaigning against the constitutional ratification.

There are however some parts of James Madison’s argument in the Federalist No. 10 that I do agree with them. I agree that the best way to work out the crisis of faction is by “controlling its effects” as opposed to “removing its clauses” (Madison par 2)^[2].

This is because with the enormous diversity of parties and welfare in complete state, there is reduced likelihood that the populace would have a common intention to assault the rights of the entire nationalities thus frustrating any attempt individual factional concerns. At the same time I agree with George Mason’s augment in his objection to the Constitution that the bill of right is very significant. This would promote the sense of security to the people as they enjoy the gains of the common ruling of the law.

I however consider the bill of right to be the most important part of the constitution. It protects a batch of other essential freedoms. It promotes the human dignity for instance one is protected from the over ruling like being sentenced for a life imprisonment for just taking someone’s 20 pounds. These rights protect one from mob justice until when judged in court thus the society is not allowed to take law into its hands and further promotion of justice.

In the constitution I would change the way people vote by allowing two election choices instead of one vote clause. This would promote political change as in cases where voters like one candidate, but only cast their ballots to the most popular candidate just as a means of throwing away of votes.

In conclusion, both the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist held rights of expressing themselves on their different opinions. No body can imagine the state which the United State could be without the bill of rights. Federalism is however important in that it outlines on the ideas of how regimes should be formed^[3]. At the same time the nation and the federal regime draws the control from the public on constitutional format which describe the powers and accountability that the public have entrusted to their regimes.

Bibliography / Footnotes

1. Bowles, Nigel. The government and politics of the United States. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1993. Pp 268.
2. Madison, James. The Federalist No. 10 The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued). 1787. Par 2.
3. Bowles, Nigel. The government and politics of the United States. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1993.

Modern federalism is at crossroads in maintaining balance between national and state government. Development and evolution of democracy over the centuries has been focusing on devolution of central powers of government to increase independence of the local states. Currently, since the United States has experienced effectiveness of both national and local governments, the politicians are busy advocating for the balance between the two.

Some politicians are advocating for devolution to increase independence of various states and the subsequent development while others are advocating for centralization of powers for the standardization of laws and policies towards resolution of a common problem. Modern federalism in the United States does not distinguish between national issues and local issues because politicians are group the issue together as common problems that need common solution and hence centralization of issues.

Derthick argues that, “as these contrasting conceptions suggest, American federalism is a highly protean form, long on change and confusion, short on fixed, generally accepted principles” (Para. 3). Thus, the state of federalism in the United States is obscure because national and local forces are actively pulling their sides.

When vice president, Albert Gore, in 2000 sought presidential nomination on democratic ticket, he gave detailed manifesto on the issues that he would deal with if elected as president of the United States. Since the United States has devolved form of government with strong legislations that distinguish central and local government, the manifesto of Albert Gore did reflect federalism.

Among the issues in his manifesto was education, which lies in jurisdiction of the local government and not national government according to the federal legislations. “Gore’s ‘blizzard of positions’ included preschool for all children, a ban on gang-style clothing, teacher testing, ‘second-chance’ schools for trouble-prone students, back-to-school parent-teacher meetings where a strict discipline code would be signed, and ‘character education’ courses in the schools” (Derthick Para. 2).

The education manifesto of a presidential candidate reflects that national government still dominate local governments despite the devolution of powers and responsibilities.

Since Congress tends to formulate legislations that undermine federalism, judiciary has counteracted some of the legislation that deem unfavourable for federal system of government. For example, “in Printz v. U.S. (1997) the court invalidated a provision of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that required local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on all gun purchasers” (Derthick Para. 8).

The court ruled out that the provision would contravene the tenth amendment to the United States constitution by giving local government the mandate to carry out responsibility of the federal government.

Moreover, in electoral politics, modern constitutional amendments have favoured centralization of electoral process and voting rights though earlier devolution gave local governments the responsibility to run and control their own electoral process and legislations. Thus, shift in electoral powers means that the United States is centralizing some of the already devolved powers.

Due to increasing common interests of various states in terms of education, security, democracy, and development, the central government is gradually usurping devolved powers of various states with the objective of enhancing concerted efforts towards resolution of critical issues. In this view, federalism is growing gradually at the expense of devolution. That is why the United States president still has imperial powers to command respective states concerning matters that deem to be common amongst various states.

Work Cited

Derthick, Martha. “American Federalism: Half Full or Half Empty.” The Brookings Institution. 2000. Web. <https://www.brookings.edu/articles/american-federalism-half-full-or-half-empty/>

Throughout the world’s history, conflicts have emerged on how to unite state and federal powers within one system of governance. To date, several controversies indicate how these conflicts continue. This paper examines the current federal issue of the same-sex marriage, its pros and cons, and my own opinion regarding the best power division.

Same-sex marriage was once a concern for individual states, but currently it is emerging as a federal issue. This has triggered the debate to shift from the state courts and legislatures to the federal courts with the interest groups looking for the best platform to present their case.

Earlier, the federal government was prohibited to legalize same-sex marriage by the Defense of Marriage Act. In addition, state governments were also included. However, as from 2004, states began legalizing it.

Relative to the advantages, federal involvement on same-sex marriage can promote individualism. This will help with accommodation of interests of the bigger majority like culture, style, or language (Bond & Smith, p. 76).

However, state government is better placed to enhance policy positions that are specific to its area and needs of its constituents. On the other hand, federal government formulates policies that cater for the majority in order to create a balance between the states. Next, it will allow for experimentation of various laws and policies across different states.

In regard to the disadvantages, federal government involvement in the same-sex marriage has contributed to various challenges. First and foremost, conflicts have erupted between states due to different policies pertaining same-sex marriage (Bond & Smith, p. 86). Different states develop their own individual customs and culture pertaining to same-sex marriage.

Every time one crosses a state boundary he or she is bound by different laws and policies. Therefore, it is challenging for the federal government to come up with a strong policy as the states are often divided on the issue. Secondly, this has an adverse effect on the economy.

The central government is responsible for handling the overall economy although each state has its unique economy. Same-sex marriage faces huge economic disparities, as opposed to heterosexual marriages. Same-sex couples are not legitimately recognized as married couples. In this case, they are not entitled to some of the states’ or federal government benefits such as exemption from taxes like the heterosexual couples.

For instance, a heterosexual spouse is not subjected to taxation in inheritance cases from his or her deceased partner whereas a same-sex couple is subjected taxation. Furthermore, federalism has led to the growth of inequality mostly among the minority groups. This leads to mental problems such as stress due to stigmatization.

Studies from various states prohibiting same-sex marriages have revealed that the majority of same-sex couples exhibited mental heath problems. This was attributed to minority stress resulting from stigmatization of the minority groups and psychological distress.

Moreover, the negative campaign associated with its ban is what increased the stress. Apart from the mental health problem, the ban on same-sex marriage leads to other physical health problems. For instance, its ban is said to have triggered an increase in HIV infection in some states.

Finally, the division of power between federal and state government based on confederation is the best. In this case, the federal government receives direct grant power from the states government, but not from the citizens (Bond & Smith, p. 73).

This would allow for optimum resource utilization and formulation of policies. As mentioned, state government is better placed to handle local needs. Thus, the federal government would be best suited for international issues and defense.

Works Cited

Bond, Jon R. & K.B. Smith. The Promise and Performance of American Democracy. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education, 2008. Print.

The article (Barnett 2009) on federal amendments is very important because it sheds light on the responsibilities of the federal government and those of state governments. Many are times when the American government has been criticized for going beyond its designated mandates.

This is because individual states feel that they are not able to exercise their freedom fully due to interruptions from the federal government. Michigan has boldly expressed its opinion regarding this matter because this state feels that the federal government is imposing policies that are not included in the constitution.

All the fifty states have their respective parliaments or legislature which can be useful in pushing for changes in the constitution if they feel that the laws imposed by the federal government are not appropriate.

For the changes in the constitution to occur the state parliament must gather support from other states for their petitions to be considered valid. This means that the states have the authority to reject decisions made by the federal government. But the number that can call for amendments must be the majority of the states, say like three quarter of all fifty states.

The above mentioned authority conferred to the states by the constitution makes the congress tremble because congress men and women fear that they won’t have any powers over the states hence they would be gagged. The main agenda here is the evenness or equality on how the powers are shared between the federal government and the states governments without interfering with the rights of their people.

One of the main issues that have been bothering most people is federal taxation and a suggestion has been brought forward that could see it being scrapped off and its place be replaced by sales tax. I think this is a good idea because no one can evade such taxes because whether one likes it or not the commodity prices will incorporate taxes such that the people do not have to account for their taxes because they pay them when purchasing goods and services.

Barnett (2009) has some suggestions which can help create equality between the federal government and the individual states without interfering with the rights of people. The first suggestion states that the federal government has authority to control the events that involve more than one state.

However, the second suggestion clearly explains that the federal government can not interfere with matters concerning an individual state at all. This policy ensures that individual states have full control of events within their respective borders. Perhaps this is because the happenings taking place in one nation may not affect the other states.

The third suggestion explains that although the congress is in charge of monetary allocations to individual states it can not dictate how that money will be used in those states. This means that each state must establish its projects that are urgent and thus give them the first priority. This is because the state legislatures are the ones that are familiar with the problems affecting their people hence they are the most appropriate people to make budgetary allocations.

The above statement means that when the people feel that their state legislature is failing them they should not blame the federal government but should instead clarify issues with their respective representatives into the congress. This article is really an eye opener to many because most people don not understand the different roles and authorities that are conferred to the federal government and the state legislature.

Section five of amendment means that the judges have a collective obligation to monitor the authority of the congress by vetting its executions to determine whether they are justified or not. This implies that the judges can reject ideas being proposed by the congress if they don’t safeguard the freedom of individuals.

What has really caught my attention is the fact that the federal tax can be eliminated. There are so many people in the recent past who have been prosecuted for failing to submit tax returns documents. If this policy is implemented such cases will never happen again. This article (Barnett 2009) has clearly defined the boundaries between the congress and the individual states.

Before reading this article I thought that the states had to consult the federal government before implementing anything. But this can only happen if the intended action may involve other states. For instance, the states can not go to declare war because that is the duty of federal government.

Landy and Milkis (2008) argue that this is quite logical because the federal government is the one that manages the military operations. This means that the military has central point of authority. This magnitude of freedom is important because in as much the states are different they may have varied agendas in their respective states and the congress may not understand the relevance of certain issues to a given state. Setting a boundary for the congress ensures that it does not interfere with the progress of states.

Engaging the congress in events between various states is important because incase of any disagreements the congress can be consulted as an intermediary in solving the problems that may arise. This implies that the federal government ensures that states abide to the terms of agreements established at the onset of partnership.

The congress here is meant to foster unity among the states and serves as an umbrella for shielding all of its member states. Furthermore, if all policies were to left in the hands the states would loose greatly because we all know that there are hardly any laws that are passed in the congress.

Some of the questions raised by the author have been resolved, such as the one about equality between the authority of the federal government and that of state because the boundaries are meant to avoid any clashes involving the two entities. On the other hand, the question about whether the suggested policies can be implemented has been left unresolved because the author does not highlight on the willingness of the states and the congress to adopt the policies.

Bibliography

Barnett, Randy. 2009. “The Case for a Federalism Amendment”. The Wall Street Journal. Web

Landy, Marc and Milkis Sidney. 2008. American Government: Balancing Democracy and Rights. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

Federalist Paper Number 10 was among the papers published in 1788 in New York. Three authors namely; Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison were involved in the publication of these papers. Their major aim was to sway opinion during the ratification of the new American constitution. James Madison authored this particular paper.

It is one of the most influential papers and it talks about faction and the role of government in regulating it as well as liberty. Madison studied at Princeton, Virginia. He participated in the local politics and thereafter Continental Congress. Madison represented Virginia in Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia. He therefore participated in drafting of United States constitution. He later became a leader in the congress during the ratification of the constitution (Wills, 1982).

Madison’s Discussion

Madison’s discussion is clear evidence of his devotion to the republic and its liberty. In his argument, Madison strongly says that faction and liberty go hand in hand. The government should not concentrate on causes of faction, instead, it should focus on controlling its effects. According to him, eliminating causes is as well as hindering people’s opinions and doing away with their liberty. Forcing the people to hold the same opinion is oppression or totalitarianism which goes against the nature of human beings.

As man exercises liberty, faction is bound to happen because it is enclosed in fallibility of man. In other words, freedom of expression should not be interfered with. This is because even though man’s reasoning is not always perfect, important opinion can be blocked out in case liberty is curtailed.

In addition, Madison argues that liberty and faction is important in political life and government system. However, he clarifies that faction involving violence is not liberty and is destructive in a country. He further advises the government to control the effects by employing republican model of government.

“Iron triangle”

Madison mentions the legislature, interest groups and bureaucracy to refer to the three angles of iron triangle. In his discussion, he says that the three would work independently but with one major goal of protecting the good of the public. According to him, legislation should be put in place to enhance the rights of the people. Interest groups can be allowed to exist but should not be a part of bureaucracy in order to avoid corruption.

Interest Groups and the Bureaucracy

Just like any other individual, Madison was concerned with government use of nation’s resources to bring about coercion. To him interests groups can be compared to such government. Individuals create groups with their own interest at the expense of minorities’ rights. Moreover, just like Aristotle, Madison agrees that virtue should be upheld by the authority.

He also believes that democracy cannot be achieved. Like Aristotle who argues that democracy cannot work because people are busy with other activities and thus have no time to do good for the better of the public. Madison believes that animal nature in man overdo the ability to do good for the public by an individual in a democratic state.

He adds that democracy allows people to protect their own interests. This in turn hinders them from doing well for the sake of the public. Madison would therefore advocate that interest groups be independent from bureaucracy so as to avoid a situation in which they use power to protect their own interests (Epstein, 1984).

Conclusion

Federalist Paper Number 10 outlines how the new constitution and the republican government would function for the good of the people than the continental congress that was in power before. Madison also wanted to see that the system does not allow factions that would go against the rights of people and especially the minority. He further argues that factions cannot be avoided if liberty has to be achieved. The government should therefore focus on controlling the effects and not eliminating causes of factions.

References

Epstein, D. (1984). The Political Theory of the Federalist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wills, G. (1982). Explaining America. New York: Penguin Books.

Federalism is allocation or division of power between the state and the nation. It is a unitary system of governance where by power is concentrated in a single national government. Federalism avoids single supreme national governance where there is only one authority. The two levels always have final authority and self governance in specific areas. This means that the citizens always have political responsibility to both governments who also secure their rights in the country.

Advantages of Federalism

1. Federalism promotes unity: the system provides a united national government deal in matters such as finance, defence, regulation of business and foreign affairs. Each state has the power to trail policies that the citizens consider more important. Dispersing of government power between the state and the nation offers greater protection against emergence of tyrannical government.
2. Federalism promotes efficiency of government: distribution of power between the state and nation provides division of work and specialization of functions. Thus each unit can exercise functions that they are well suited which promotes efficiency.
3. Federalism test policies and training of leaders. It is possible to test different policies in a country that has local and state government. If the policy proves to be beneficial, then it can be expanded to be used nationwide. It also offers opportunity to test the courage of selected leaders and to prove whether they are responsible.
4. Federalism promotes liberty and self-governance. The system causes government to have control of itself because of great rivalry of power between the state and the nation. An action of one government is always opposed by other government to enforce civil rights in Southern states.

Disadvantages of Federalism

1. Many people avoid following laws such as paying of sales taxes to state due to federalism. There are those who purchase goods in neighbouring state to escape sales tax in a particular state.
2. It is difficult to enforce law on criminals because of federalism. This is because most people after they have committed a crime in a particular state, they escape and move to other states. Different states also have different laws making it hard to enforce law on visitors who had moved in the state.
3. There are increased interstate conflicts due to federalism. There are some states which pursue policies which frustrate national policy because they cause them to sacrifice some of their interests to local interests such as segregation. States also engage in economic competition which causes economic warfare amongst them.
4. Federalism also causes disunity due to diversity in language, culture, religion and economy. This normally causes disintegration and internal conflicts among different states (Dye, 114). The state and the nation always evade responsibility especially when it comes to dealing with environmental issues such as cleaning up of Great lakes. Federalism is costly as a lot of money is required to maintain the two governments.

Methods of Dealing with Problems of Federalism

1. Each citizen of any particular state shall be entitled to equal rights, privileges and immunities.
2. Each state shall give full credit and be faithful to judicial proceedings, public records and public actions of all other states.
3. Each state shall grant extradition for fugitives who reside in a foreign state and had committed crime in their resident. They will have to face legal charges for their actions in whichever state they are in.
4. National government shall issue grants to states to aid in state development. Each state will receive 22% to 28% funds annually to spend in development.
5. States shall make agreement on how to deal with common problems that they face.

National and State Powers in American Federalism

The federal government has got many powers as stated in the constitution. Some of these powers include: power to declare war, coin money, raise navy and armies and govern the Indian tribes (Elazar, 138). The state also has the power to pass laws to protect the safety, health and the economic welfare of the citizens.

Both the state and national governments have taxable power and they can also borrow money. The federal government in America has special authority to control interstate businesses and trade with the foreign countries. The national government is also entitled to forming treaties and conducting foreign policies. The state government has the mandate of conducting elections, establishing local government and rectifying and amending constitution

The national government in American Federalism has delegation powers which are always given to them by the constitution. They also have implied powers which are necessary in delegation of power in the nation. Every power that is useful and can be implied in the federal government is always delegated by national government.

The national government also possess concurrent powers which enable them to exercises along with the state government. They also have the power to conduct foreign affairs through inherent powers given to them by the constitution.

Reasons for increase in the Powers of the Nation since 1788

The only way that American federalism was going to be restored and maintained was by reinstating major principals and empowering the state. This was meant to re-establish proper rule and national governance. In 1788, Fisher Ames of Massachusetts made a declaration to increase the powers of the national government. This was due to several reasons such as:

1. Need to regulate interstate commerce power. America wanted to control all the economic activities of the nation and raising the national government powers would enable them achieve it. They will then have special authority to control interstate businesses and trade with the foreign countries.
2. The desire to have war powers was also one of the reasons why national government power was increased since 1788. The government demands to have war powers were created by tragedies of modern wars. Possessing a lot of power will enable them have the authority to raise navy and armies that could control tragedies from happening by protecting the nation.
3. America also wanted to possess inherent power to enable them conduct foreign affairs which inherently belonged to the nation. This is also one of the reasons as to why national powers were increased.
4. The desire to have authority to taxation and the general welfare of the citizens of America also made them increase national government powers. Possessing taxation power under the 16^th Amendment of constitution alleged an increase in power to the nation. Funds which consist of trillions of dollars were assigned to nations with taxation power to spend in programs that promote the general welfare of the citizens.
5. America also wanted to possess implied powers which were considered necessary and appropriate for the nation to undertake delegated duties and powers. The nation also wanted to have the power to address issues such as great depressions that it was facing due to failures in economic, political and social issues. Possess power would probably give them the voice to air out their grievances.

Works Cited

Dye, Thomas. Politics in America, eighth edition/alternate edition. New York: Pearson/PH, 2009.

Elazar, Daniel. American Federalism: A View from the States. New York: Harper & Row, 1984.

Federalism is a government political system, which has both local units and states and national government. The system has powers to come up with final decisions based on some governmental practices. It is a government system with the national as well as state levels sharing political supremacy. The local units or states and the national government function autonomously.

The power assignments of the national government comprises of both implied and expressed powers. Article I, Section 8 presents the majority of the expressed authorities. The Implied powers permit the central government to come up with decisions, which are not part of the expressed powers.

There is also the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article I, Section 8. Inherent Powers clause under Article I, Section 8 gives powers, which are acknowledged by every sovereign nation. State Governments powers clause was delegated to the national government through the Tenth Amendment. Through this, the national government has extended the capacity of governmental activities on a grand scale (Gerston 234).

There are other clauses under Article I, Section 8, like the Concurrent Powers clause, which provide powers shared by the national government with state governments. These include; the power to generate and implement laws, the police power, the power to levy tax, and the power to establish courts with limitation of extent.

Prohibited Powers at the same time concerns both the state and national governments. For example, there is a prohibition of export taxation for national government. On the other hand, the State governments are restricted from carrying out foreign policy as well as from coining money (Ginsberg, Theodore, Lowi &Weir 337).

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI authorizes the national government activities to be supreme. It also gives provision that any conflict involving legitimate practices of the national government with a state ought to be resolved in support of the national government. Similarly, the Interstate Relations under Article IV tries to resolve possible problems among states by specifying some clauses.

These clauses include full faith and credit clause, which ensure that the states ought to honor activities of other states. There are also the Privileges and immunities that require citizens of one state not to treat those from other states as aliens. For example, it gives a provision that when a citizen of a given state visits another state, he or she should get reception as a citizen of the state. The clause also plays a crucial role in interstate extradition.

It ensures that when a person is suspected to have done a crime in a given state and escape to another state, he should be extradited to the alleged crime scene state. In addition, the Article plays another role under Interstate compacts. It ensures the compacts between states to be permitted by Congress. This occurs when the compact changes the power connection between the national government and states (Zavodnyik, 108).

The McCulloch v. Maryland Supreme Court decision was necessary in expansion of national government powers. This case advanced a constitutional issue relevant to the national government powers. In this case, the Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict confirmed national authority. The Congress power is not firmly restricted towards expressed powers. For example, Marshall held there were implied powers for Congress to execute the expressed powers.

Additionally, Marshall upheld the doctrine of supremacy through the decision that states would not override federal practices by taxing them. Gibbons v. Ogden case provides the national government precedent to control various economic activities. There was expanded explanation of what would be taken as interstate trade. Eventually, this description would permit Congress the authority to control broader economic activities compared to the past (LaCroix, 213).

The New Deal, as well as Cooperative Federalism, emphasized an extended duty for the national government. It encouraged the cooperation between the states and national government. The New Deal for instance responded to the Great Depression. This was through Franklin D. Roosevelt’s social-welfare programs intended to ease the unfavorable economic period. However, Dual federalism directed that programs like aid for the poor were completely not the federal duty (Gerston 187).

Works Cited

Gerston, Larry. American Federalism: A Concise Introduction Armonk. New York, United States: M.E. Sharp, 2007. Print.

Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore J. Lowi, and Weir, Margaret. We the People: An Introduction to American Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Co Press, 2009. Print.

LaCroix, Alison. The Ideological Origins of American Federalism. Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States: Harvard University Press, 2010. Print.

Zavodnyik, Peter. The Rise of the Federal Colossus: The Growth of Federal Power from Lincoln to F.D.R. California: Santa Barbara Press, 2011. Print.