The debate between state and federal power has been around since our early founding. Throughout our history we've seen the National Government grow and assume more responsibility that may have been typically left to the states. During the 90s, we saw increasing devolution (delegating certain responsibilities back to the states), but it seems that we've moved back towards a stronger national government in the last decade. Do you believe that federalism, as we see it today, is practiced as the founders intended? Has the Fed. Gov't taken too much power? Should states be given more autonomy? When and why have we seen the national gov't expand? For this Blog Entry, I would like you to define Federalism, answer the above questions in paragraph format, and find one other article to link to your Blog entry that relates to federalism. (Please explain why you included this article and how it relates to your entry.)
350+ Words
Due 12pm on Sunday 1/24
Posts
Federalism is the distribution of power between a central authority and its constituent units. I believe the government needs a slight re-adjustment, for this distribution has become slightly skewed. Just like any fine automobile, a tune-up won’t hurt everyone once in a while. For the most part, the Federal government stays out of some pretty important topics like driving, levels of social policies, and schooling. However, a couple problems still remain. A perfect example of the abusive power in the Federal government lays within the concept which Marshall, himself, would be proud to call his own: Judicial Review. Pretty much anything “unconstitutional” in the eyes of the president and/or the Supreme Court justices can be changed. Also, Obama’s healthcare bill is truly excessive, for it will only going to lead to abuse by illegal aliens. There is already universal coverage, since federal law dictates that all emergency rooms must treat anyone who enters them.
ReplyDeleteAnd truthfully, Obama’s government is en route to becoming very Socialistic; our nation has fought against such forms of government for the majority of the past century. FDR’s New Deal epitomizes a liberal action in office; however, it did achieve the ultimate goal of economic recovery. Our president’s programs are not very promising, since they don’t have any long term recovery capabilities. Who is to say they won’t work, but it seems as if these bandages are only going to hurt the economy more if the power is not trusted to someone else: the states. Competitive state economies are a simple way to help jumpstart the market. If some states didn’t have better social and economic policies than others, what would keep the entire national population from flooding to California, Florida, and New York? These inequalities are what keep our market competitive, and ultimately, healthy. Federal handouts promote laziness; if the government wants to be so involved, create businesses so the unemployed can work for their money. The federal government is there to collect taxes, protect the Union, and manage the economy. The states should decide what else should be done within their respective boundaries. Therefore, I think that there should be amendments in the Constitution to restrain federal power to prevent a shift to another form of government. Let’s get real: the founding fathers rode horse buggies and wore long, white wigs. With changes in society comes the need to change its rules. The president has little faith in the people, which is reasonable due to our somewhat ridiculous spending over the past fifteen some years. But Federal government control is not always the solution. Obama needs to hand over some of the power and let the rest of society play its course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc&feature=player_embedded.
Mike Rogers makes some extremely valid points which oppose the healthcare bill, including unfair treatment to the 85% of Americans who have healthcare already through their own payment or employment, and also a startling statistic which is extremely reminiscent of a Socialistic society: in a universal healthcare system, any person with cancer has a less likely chance of survival than in countries without universal healthcare, including the current situation in the United States. Everyone knows that communism and socialism appear wonderful on paper, but the fact is it eliminates competition and ultimately is a digression in the standard of living in the United States today.
Federalism is a system of government where the power and control is distributed between the national level and state, “As defined by the United States Constitution, federalism is a fundamental aspect of American government, whereby the states are not merely regional representatives of the federal government, but are granted independent powers and responsibilities.” The states do not directly have their own power, but are a representation of the national scale. The national government gives the appearance of unity, while the states are content with their pseudo feelings of power. They are influenced by the national government’s authority on laws and regulations, and states conform to these restrictions. As an example, school systems are “government” run organizations even though states are supposed to be in control of education. The government is able to have control because they introduce funding to schools that conform to the standards expected of them. I don’t think that the states have enough power. They are given the appearance of power, but in the end, national government usually has the final word. States are being bribed with funding, forcing them down a path that they might not necessarily agree with. This is exactly what the founding fathers intended the government to be. They did not have much trust in the people, or even the states. They felt that as long as they are always in control, or have the final say in situations, the power that the states seem to be getting will keep them content. The fall back systems to keep a check on states such as the electoral college, or making revolt illegal is a direct sign of this lack of trust.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.isbe.state.il.us/nclb/default.htm
Government involvement with the No Child Left Behind act is a clear example of the abusive powers of the central government. States have control over the children, but if they fail (while being compared of other’s test scores) schools are taken over by government and turned into charter schools. I believe this is another example of the lack of trust in the states. The government takes over the school, and sets in place a system which they think will solve the problem.
Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. Federalism has become a big part of our country, and how it affects us. I think that our federal government is doing a good job as it is now, but, as all things do, needs a bit improvement in some areas. I believe that the states should be given a bit more power, and not always be overruled by the federal government. The states are its own state, so they should make decisions for themselves. So many are being pressured into enforcing laws and conforming to what other states have done, but I think they should do what they think is right. The federal government should, however, be involved in things such as education, driving laws, etc. The states cannot have all of the power given to them though, because if someone likes one state’s laws/rules, they will move there just to benefit from those laws that they prefer. I think that would happen more, then states would become overpopulated and the states will be played favorites. I think the federal government has expanded ever since the growing of technology and our past events, such as September 11th. The federal government is there to collect taxes and manage the economy. The states should decide what else should be done within their boundaries. I think it is only right. The federal government has been given more power since the 90’s, which was the high point for growing technology as stated in this article: http://law.jrank.org/pages/6815/Federalism-SUPREME-COURT-TILTING-TOWARD-STATES-RIGHTS.html.
ReplyDeleteI think that there should be amendments in the Constitution to evenly distribute powers to the states, and then keep it that way. Not that the states don’t have power now, but not enough. The states and federal government both share the power of making and enforcing laws. But that should be changed to make it exclusively the states responsibilities. I think that if some changes were made to our government, then we might be a bit better off than we are right now. Obama is trying hard, but I think society just needs to take its course and see where that takes us.
The definition of federalism according to our textbook is “a system of government in which power is divided, by a constitution, between a central government and regional governments”. I read this and go “huh?”. So here is my understanding of what federalism is. Federalism is the power that belongs to this country is divided up amongst different departments in our government, these departments keep each other in check to prevent one from becoming too powerful over the over. Those departments are at a federal level; however there are also departments at the state and even regional levels as well. This is important because it allows the states big or small to have a role and say in our federal government, while still allowing each state to differentiate itself from the rest.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to are we living out federalism the way our founders intended? Id say yes. Our founders created a system that gave power to the people, but deep down didn’t really trust them, that is why we as citizens do not directly vote for our president the electoral college does. We still have that same system in effect today. And due to the President being the most powerful man in our country and we do not have the ability to vote for him directly this gives the government more power than the people and is the same as the way our fathers created it. So Id say we are a good example of the what they intended. Another example is that when it comes to laws, people today can write their congressman their opinion and thoughts but that doesn’t mean that it has to become a law. The government holds the right and ability to disagree. This is the same principle existed years ago.
Should the federal government give more power to the states? I say no. The way our current system is set up it allows for states to all be a little bit different as long as they follow the supreme law of the land. This ability to separate themselves is called freedom and what sets America out from the rest of the world. If you take away the freedom for states to add their own rules then you take away a majority of our freedom as individuals because we choose where we want to live and if every state is the same, there would be no point in choosing. I wouldn’t give more power to either the states nor the federal this is because we have a nice balance right now.
On CNN there was an article regarding a father who tried to sue a school because the school made his daughter say “under God” in the pledge of allegiance. The case came back in favor of the school because she as an individual can choose whether or not to say “under God”. The judge continued to say that if the school had made her stand then she would have a case because "Standing is the right to sue”. The student is protected by Federal law because the school can not force her to stand therefore if they had, that’s when the father may have won his case. This basically proves that the Federal government encourages you to say the pledge but nowhere demands you to. Therefore the daughter had the choice as to what she wanted to, thus its not the fault of the government at any level. This is a perfect example of the goveremnt having a balanced role in our society, they are not to influencal or demanding on rules or laws they affect ones freedom, but they are involved enough to keep schools from taking advantage of the kids.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/18/hamilton.pledge/index.html
Federalism is a system of government where power is divided between a central authority or main authority and they constituent political units. The United States uses Federalism when they divide the power from the central government and the states, they are granted individual powers. They have a legislative branch, an executive branch, and a judicial branch, the states have the power to enforce, pass, and interpret laws, up to a point where they don’t violate the constitution.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156260,00.html is my quote, it states how slowly the government is taking over the education department, and it states that Washington will eventually be the “Nations super school board”. It talks about George Bush’s no child left behind act, and how local school districts have to answer to bureaucrats. It states also how the government in Washington is slowly taking away the states powers by interfering in gay marriage and proposing to ban it in all 50 states, and that because the central government is taking over everything we as a nation will eventually be poorer for it.
I believe that federalism today isn’t practiced as the founders intended. I think they thought it would make it better for the nation to split its powers, and not have it all in the central government. I think they believed the central government should only be used for controlling the Country and for important things but not for everyday matters that only restrict more freedoms from the everyday citizen. I believe that the government has taken too much power for itself and it should give the state and the people more power altogether. And yes I do believe the states should have more autonomy or freedoms. I believe ever since September 11th the national government has been expanding for reasons of defense of the nation, but also for other reasons. President Bush pushed for more control over schools and soon that will be not controlled by the states but by the central government.
Federalism in the United States is defined as being the evolving relationship between the U.S. state government and our federal government. Powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government or forbid to the states are reserved to the people or the states. That is where the division of authority comes into play amongst the powers on the state and federal level. But I believe that at times, our federal government is taking their granted power too far once they start to get into the personal issues of the people. Or once they start doing things that even our founding fathers might find to be wrong. If Obama or any of his high-ranking officials see something as being unconstitutional in their eyes, it is automatically deemed that and reprimanded immediately. I believe this is wrong of our leaders and is not the way our founding fathers intended for their policies to be used. The states should have a say with things like this because of the mere fact that they have the responsibility for the full protection of all their citizens. So if they believe something the federal powers are assuming would be best for all really is not, they must have a say in each decision. But on the federal level they are doing a very good job of staying away from the personal choices that rightfully should be delegated to the state and their people fully. A perfect example of these policies is exemplified when it comes to the always-controversial topic of same sex marriage. The debate of gay marriage has never disappointed in stirring up emotion amongst the people and that is why an issue like this is left to the state because it is more of a personal issue and the federal government would have no right making that final decision for all to be forced to follow. Just last month New York held their senate hearing to vote on whether or not to allow the act of same sex marriage in their state. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/nyregion/03marriage.html. Even though the final decision ultimately is left to the senators and not the people directly, it gives the people a better chance to lobby for their side of the issue and hopefully, sway the senator’s opinions their way. And even though the bill was denied, it shed light on the issue. And that is why I decided to include this particular article because it shows where the division of power is amongst certain national issues and how the present federalist policies allow for the final decision to be made rightfully by the state, and all of its inhabitants.
ReplyDeleteFederalism is the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a center (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). What the founders of the federal government wanted was just to have control of the federal issues rather than all the little issues. I have seen the government expand with the driving age. They want to have control over everything. I believe the federal government is captivating way too much power in some situations. The federal government should pass off some of the issues to the states. An example would be driving laws for teens. There are so many different rules, like in Illinois they believe in the “three-stage licensing system beginning at age 15 for learner’s permit, age 16 for the intermediate stage, and age 18 for full licensure” (2009 SafeRoads4Teens). But in the state of Montana they also have trust in the 3 step system but there “three-stage licensing system beginning at age 14 years and 6 months for learner’s permit, age 15 for the intermediate stage, and age 16 for full drivers license” (2009 SafeRoads4Teens). Something else that is very different is that in the cell phone law in the state of Montana it states that “non-emergency use of cell phones and other communications devices , including texting while driving, during the learner’s permit and intermediate stages” (2009 SafeRoads4Teens). So what that means it that the person will only be in that stage until the age of 16 than they have the freedom of texting on the phone or just calling friends while they are driving. In the state of Illinois it states that “a prohibition on non-emergency use of cell phones and other communications devices until age 19 and a prohibition on texting while driving for all drivers”(2009 SafeRoads4Teens). In those ways I think that the federal government should just have the universal driving age at 15 learners permit than at 16 get a drivers license and once the person turns the age of 17 than they have full freedom of the roads. What about the kids who live in Montana and there family moves to Illinois and they are 15 with a drivers license than the individual would have to take driver education all over again and start from scratch. How this article relates to federalism is that most of the states have there own driving rules instead of the federal government just having the universal age. http://www.allstate.com/foundation/teen-driving/teen-driving-laws.aspx
ReplyDeleteFederalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a national (federal) government and various regional governments. The United States Constitution defines federalism as a fundamental aspect of American government, whereby the states are not merely regional representatives of the federal government, but are granted independent powers and responsibilities. Today, one would say that yes federalism still exists, but to a certain extent. The founding fathers built our nation with a system that gave power to the people; it was trust that was the issue. The government is so hesitant to put such heavy responsibility on states so they feel the need to do all the work themselves. That is the problem that is rising again today; power is being taken away from the states because the central government is placing guidelines on what the states can and can not do. They may be allowing them to have their own power, but the government is still playing big brother and not allowing the states to have full control over what has been reserved for them.
ReplyDeleteWith the shape our government is in at the moment, I think it is best that they handle the national affairs rather than being concerned with the affairs of the state. For example, education is a hot topic lately and what is supposed to be the responsibility of the state is slowly being made a federal issue. It has been said that "decisions which are now made in the local school or school district will slowly but surely be transferred to Washington…. The Department of Education will end up being the Nation's super school board. That is something we can all do without.'' Because of Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, schools now have to report to bureaucrats. This slow push for conformity within the school districts takes away from the states rights to run their education system the way they want. Not only is this the case for education, but for other everyday matters such as; marriage, licenses, medicines, etc. The government is starting to abandon the idea of federalism which can only lead to more problems within the country in the future.
Article Referenced: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156260,00.html
Federalism is most simply the division of power between the federal government and the states. In the past decade, government has taken a major responsibility to assume the position as a head power of the country with less powers delegated to the states. This is because in the past decade the economy has taken a monstrous downfall and the government feels that it is the only power capable of nursing the state of the nation back to health. I believe that the government in today’s times is fundamentally the same as the founders intended to be -to keep the nation stable and secure- but it is becoming like a giant octopus grabbing to control more aspects of our lives in order to provide for that stability and security. Originally, the separation of powers was supposed to be clear cut with certain powers delegated to the states while the federal government also had only specific powers. However, this is obviously not the case based on the marble cake model which reflects the federal powers creeping into states rights. Based on the Venn diagram in class, we can see how many powers are concurrent further proving the marble cake model as accurate.
ReplyDeleteI found this one very interesting article called “Federalism and National Identity” (http://www.federalunion.org.uk/federalism/nationalidentity.shtml). Although the article deals with Europe, America is brought into the article a couple of times. I found the article very interesting because the article suggests that our national identity does not stem from our national federal government, but rather the other levels of government. It is not the government that makes us who we are and gives us our identity but rather the nation as a whole. This week’s topic dealt with federalism, and this article helps support the fact that the federal government should take a step back from controlling more aspects of our lives since it is really not doing us any good and not moving the nation forward.
Federalism is a system of power that is divided and distributed between the state and federal government. I believe Federalism has been changed and is not being practiced how our founders intended many years ago. Today, our economy is in a national debt, and our state officials are being overpaid and are making the government become a fraud. The federal government is revolving around too many rules and not focusing on the real issue at hand, our economy. The state government is a depiction of the federal government, but is cycled through. Even though they have limited power, the states should be given more power to the advancements of states needs, and other federal decisions that revolve around the states. Instead, the federal government gives the state government incentive to fund for such things as education to get leverage. We need less power than more power in our federal government. Our national government should not be involved with gay marriage, and the rights of education to the states. The states should have more of a say in their own issues, instead of the federal government having the utmost power. With this power over the states, our national government has expanded to controlling the way our state’s run their government, but they should be worrying about how our economy is plummeting.
ReplyDeletehttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html
The government’s involvement with gay marriage is not right and should be outlawed by the states, even though the federal government has the final say. The article gives an insight to gay marriage, and how the view of gay marriage is evolving in states across the country. The states that already have gay marriage as a legal law are mostly located in the New England area and are trying to slowly expand to the Midwest. But, states like California has a state law that bans same-sex marriage would be illegal discrimination. There are 31 states that have a referendum against gay marriage, but there are 19 states that do not have same-sex marriage as an illegal act. This shows that people of the states are unsure about gay marriage, but President Obama feels that he is “open to the possibility” of same-sex marriage. Overall, I believe gay marriage should be controlled by individual states to give the people that are homosexual the opportunity to fulfill their dreams.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFederalism is defined as a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. In my own words federalism is a part of the government that has power separated between different areas in the government. The federal government has power of a lot of the federal issues and not the minor issues that we need the federal government for. I think the federal government is taking over too much in some situation in society today. I think the Federal government should make the right decision and give some of these issues to the state. For example, having strict laws over driving ages, the state of Illinois has the permit age at 15, at 16 one is at the intermediate stage, and when one turns 18, they finally have a full license. Also, now when having a permit, there must be at least 100 hours of driving before getting a license rather then before when it was 50. There are other states that begin at 14 and by 16; they are allowed to get a license. I think that driving rules need to be equal in all states and that’s why the states should all have the same laws, so in the case federal government should demand for equality in this particular department for all states in the United States.
ReplyDeleteAnother new main law for Illinois is the cell phone rules on the road. While driving, (from Chicago tribune) you CAN text if traffic is stopped and car is parked or in neutral, text if you’re reporting an accident or emergency, text if you pull over onto shoulder, use GPS even if it’s in you’re cell phone. You CAN’T send or read a text message while operating a moving vehicle, send of read an email, send an instant message, web surf and download ring tones. This part of the article shows that the Federal government is taking part in the little issues that states have, but isn’t taking care of the whole problem. Instead of this just being an Illinois law, this should be for every state.
Overall, I think that the federal government needs to realize the all over problems and fix then for the satisfaction of the country. I think that the Federal government has to have power over the states, because just making state laws isn’t fair, and may not be the safest thing to do. These two articles I found talk mostly about driving laws, and how the state is not allowing these behaviors. If getting into an accident or pulled over for this, one could potentially spend 2 years in jail and/or pay a huge amount in fines starting at $75 and could go all the way up to $2,500. These articles talk a lot about the state laws, and I think that the federal government has to take more power in making each state equal.
http://www.allstate.com/foundation/teen-driving/teen-driving-laws.aspx
Chicago Tribune “New laws 2010” Illinois’ text messaging and driving laws goes into effect Friday. Fines for offenders start at $75.” By: Monique Garcia (tribune reporter)
Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a national government and various regional governments. The government is divided up between the central powers (the federal government) and then the constituent political powers (the state government). I believe that federalism is practiced as the founders intended it to be like. We are still not given a lot of say in certain things because the founders did not want the people to have a lot of power available to them. I think that people believe that we have more power than we used to, but I don’t really think that we do. We talked in class that we really don’t ‘choose’ the president; it’s the Electoral College that does it for us. Those choices should be given to us, but they still are not. It is the National government that does that instead of the state government. I do think that the Federal government has taken too much power from the people and states. We have seen them take over education, gun laws, and marriage laws for basically all the states. We now have the “No Child Left Behind Act” that “establishes national education testing standards and makes every local school district accountable to federal bureaucrats in Washington”. Under Bush, he implicated “Project Safe Neighborhoods” which transferred the prosecution of gun crimes from states to the federal government. The federal government should not be taking these things away from us. The states should have their own say in these facts and make up their own decisions. The federal government is now trying to take away some states rights from granting gay marriages. Only a few states have been able to get a law passed to allow gay marriage. The federal government is trying to have a say in that to create an amendment which would forbid any state from allowing gay-marriage. The national government has already stepped in to ‘fix’ basically everything else in the country. I believe that marriage laws should be the sole responsibility of the state and they should have the decision if they would like to grant gay marriage or not. The federal government should not have any say in that. I think that the Federal government should take a few steps back and stop controlling so many aspects of our lives and leave those decisions up to the state governments. The federal government should focus more on the nation as a whole to help us move forward and help us stabilize our nation.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156260,00.html
Federalism is a system of government in which there is distribution of power between a central authority and the constituent units. I don't believe federalism is practiced today as the founders intended because the original intention was for states to have much more control and federal government to only be dealing with national security and other major issues that affect all states. Also state and local government was supposed to take care of most of the peoples' needs. In my opinion, the division of power between the state and federal government is lopsided and the federal government seems to have much more control over main issues occurring in the U.S. today even though the state government is gaining more power. I believe my opinion because of the carrot-stick federalism idea and the mandate idea. The federal government is telling the states to comply with an order or lose funding. It is pretty much a threat they are putting on the states so that they can get what they want on an issue. I believe that the federal government is taking its power too far at times and not leaving the state government any say so in some situations and that is where the marble cake theory comes into play. The state government should have more power on issues that deal with the states. For example, the federal government makes the decision on state borders when I believe that should be the states power because it is directly dealing with the state. The national government began to expand after the Great Depression to bail out the country's economy. FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) began with the highest number of federal programs, many of which are still around today like Social security and FDIC. When there are more definite programs like these, the national government increases and becomes more controlling and powerful and the states get less and less power on important issues. The states become more dependent on Federal government's aid making the national government bigger and bigger. This idea is shown through this article-economics.about.com/od/howtheuseconomyworks/a/gov_growth.htm. This article also shows that recently the state government has gotten bigger on issues while many people believe the federal government has been getting out of hand. From 1960 to 1990 the state government employees have greatly increased while the federal employees have barely increased. I included this article because it shows how the government has grown throughout its long history, why it has grown throughout history, and how much the state and federal government is involved. Overall, these ideas show that the federal government and state government's control on ideas is such a hot topic today.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-09-congress-scandal-analysis_x.htm
ReplyDeleteFederalism is the distribution of power between a central authority and its constituent units, or more simply it is the sharing of power between the national, and state (and local) governments. This balance creates the democratic government that our founding fathers worked for. They did not want a centralized government such as Great Britain, where the government was given almost all the power. One issue that has arisen with federalism is just what we did not want to happen, a government that is slowly stripping away power from it’s citizens. In Dinkard’s U.S.A Today article, “In Congress, ‘we simply have too much power’ we find members of the federal government taking advantage of their positions such as taking bribes, giving away jobs, and corruptions in campaigns. One congressmen was quoted that “We Republicans have abused that power badly for the past several years”. He is simply stating that our members of the legislature have acted out of their character, not presenting themselves as expected. This causes our government to operate differently. He also states that “people are starting to get careless with the rules”, explaining that our government retains so much power targeting tax dollars for projects, contractors or campaign donors-without state’s consent. Not only that but officials have been found distributing large amounts of money in exchange for political favors. This causes it to be almost impossible to pass laws.
In regards to job opportunities, we have also seen congressmen handing out jobs to those they are associated with. This takes away opportunities from well qualified individuals who have worked hard to reach this stature. Lastly, campaigning has become much more money intensive, meaning that there is more emphasis on finances opposed to actual political views in campaigns.
In order to improve federalism, the state governments should be given more influence in the grand scheme of our country. With taxes, I believe that states should be given total control over how much to tax. When certain people do not agree with the proposals passed by Congress then why should they have to pay for it? Different states have different preferences to what they want to use their tax money for. Their people also hold different interests that might not appeal to everyone. With the affect of this regulation, it would be interesting to see how are economy fares.
I believe that federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between federal government, state, and other smaller governments. As defined by the United States Constitution, federalism is a fundamental aspect of American government, whereby the states are not merely regional representatives of the federal government, but are granted independent powers and responsibilities. With their own legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch, states are empowered to pass, enforce, and interpret laws, provided they do not violate the Constitution. This arrangement not only allows state governments to respond directly to the interests of their local populations, but also serves to check the power of the federal government. Whereas the federal government determines foreign policy, with exclusive power to make treaties, declare war, and control imports and exports, the states have exclusive power to ratify the Constitution. Most governmental responsibilities, however, are shared by state and federal governments: both levels are involved in such public policy issues as taxation, business regulation, environmental protection, and civil rights. I believe that federalism, as we see it today, is not practiced as founders intended. Our world has changed so much from when the founding father created the constitution; they could not have known all the problems we would run into. Our society was changed its interpretation on what the constitution is saying to deal with the changing times. I believe that the federal government has taken too much power. I think that the power should be divided up more; the state government should have more power. The states know what is best for their area, so it would be better for the state to have more power then the federal government. States should be given more autonomy to deal with the states citizens. The national government has expanded to deal with the economic depression and the war on terror. They had to expand to have enough money and power to try to fix the economy and send soldiers and supplies to Iraq and Afghanistan. I included the article because it was about how Congress gave Obama $787 billion stimulus package; he wanted to strengthen the economy that has been contracting rapidly in the wake of the credit crisis of the previous fall. I choose this article to show how the federal government plays in our economy and what steps are being taken to raise it back up. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html?scp=2&sq=federal%20government&st=cse)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFederalism is defined as a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. I do not believe that the way federalism exists now within the United States is the way that the founding fathers originally intended for it to function. I believe that far too much power has been taken away from the states by the federal government. An obvious example of this is with the education system and the No Child Left Behind Act, signed into law in 2002. This act infringes upon the right of the state's to control their own schools, and forces them to comply with the provisions of this act. The federal government also controls things which should be controlled by the state through use of carrot and stick federalism, in which they essentially bribe states into doing things how they wish to see them done. One such example of this is with the minimum drinking age. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act forced states to raise the minimum age for purchasing and possession of alcohol to 21, and if they did not they would cut their federal funding for for highway apportionment. These are issues which should not be mandated by the federal government. One of the great things about the United States is that there are differences between state laws. This is a healthy thing as it drives states to constantly be updating and changing their laws as society changes. When things are totally uniform across the whole country, it does promote change and reform.
ReplyDeletehttp://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/16/nation/na-west16
This is an article in the LA times which talks about Montana trying to fight against the federal government and to get more rights for state government. In the article in talks about how Montana was trying to pass legislation which directly defied federal law and its provisions on firearms. While they know that the legislation will be stopped by the federal government, it is a sort of protest to say that they believe the rights of states are slowly being taken away by the federal government.
On the web, federalism is defined as something along the lines of a system in which the power to govern is shared between national and central (state) governments, creating what is known as a federation. It also states that the governing powers surround a single head of government. To me, those ideals seem completely different. I believe that federalism is a system put in place so that there is attention to the states’ ability to control their region, but also so that the mass of America can keep within its guidelines of what is believed to be right and wrong for the country. In regards to the founders’ idea of federalism and its interpretation today, I think that there is no way they could have expected or prepared for the creation of 50 states. They presented their ideas for a country that, overall they hoped would be fair and free.
ReplyDeleteAs we grew, there certainly had to be renovations to the idea of federalism, and the country had to adapt to secure the states cooperation without taking away power from either end (state and federal government). I do think states should be given a little more power to tweak the laws, within reason or the federal government’s approval, because the people that live in the United States get to choose which state they live in, so that state should be one that meets their needs. Federal government takes responsibility of creating guidelines for most laws and securing others indefinitely, but within the guidelines states should have the chance to keep them up to date with the lives of their people.
In my attached article, you can see that I found one that is a plan for expanding of the government’s attention under Obama’s care, but therefore is not something to read too much into. It states that in 2010, Obama has set into motion the ideas of creating low budget housing, and more jobs for law enforcement, but at the same time these all cost money and as you can see this does little to close in on our ever growing deficit. As he plans to increase jobs for police officers, that is where you can see the federal overreach into state and county jurisdiction. They plan to create more jobs and take over the control that the state has to choose where and when new police buildings are placed. The local interference of the federal government may make it more difficult for the states to assume authority over public employees, and more trouble for Obama to have to watch over each and every state’s job funding.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124170283087195963.html
Federalism is a system in which the power is shared between the national and state governments. I think the founders didn’t really know what to expect when they created our American government. I think that they had an idea to share powers amongst all parts of the nation, but did not have any idea where it would lead them. Today the government is attempting to expand its powers by passing many reform bills. They are especially pushing towards a healthcare reform, which the people are okay with, but they do not want it in the hands of the federal government. If the government attains control over our healthcare the “freedom of choice and control over your own body will be lost. The privacy of your communications and medical-making decisions with your physician will be gone. More of your hard-earned dollars will be at the disposal and tender mercies of federal bureaucrats”. The federal government has clearly gone way too far. The government wants to control every part of every person life because it wants the power to meet any certain national standard it chooses, which may be whatever they see fit at a certain time even though it may not satisfy most people’s needs. As time has gone on, the states and people’s powers has been gradually taken away and at this point today, we are losing our authority. When this country was made, it was made to accommodate all people with freedoms. We use to have influence over decisions made by the national government but now it seems as though our voices are not being clearly heard by our representatives. I think that the government should give more power back to the states because then people’s opinions can be heard on a smaller level. There will be a better chance of the government reaching to individual needs as opposed to a national level of standards. The states have such a greater chance of meeting the needs of the citizens if they only have to worry about the people within their states than the federal government does with the entire nation. If the states are given more powers, our country will be more successful than it is today.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,574105,00.html
This article expands on how the government is taking over the common American man’s life. It discusses how the federal government is overstepping its powers and the constitution. They want control over everything and it is not suitable for the people to have a national level of government because people’s needs are not met when the power is so far out of their reach.
Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. I believe that the Federal Government should take back power over the states if the states are not doing their job correctly. States over the years have made different decisions that have left some states have better public schooling than others. With the No Child Left Behind Act, (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/no_child_left_behind_act/index.html) I believe it will help all children get the same opportunities as everyone else. The article I have chosen explains the history and the purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act. States have had their chance to help the situation with education where some schools have achieved and others have not. The one thing the No Child Left Behind Act did not consider was that the schools that need the most help will not do as well on the tests because they do not have the resources to keep up with the other states or other schools in their state, so the states that need the most help have already in a way dropped out of the incentive race for the money.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the federal government needs to address the same sex marriage issue, every article I found said that same sex marriage would lead to group marriages or that it was against the Bible and its teachings. What I feel is that God should be taken out of the equation and that if the government wants this country to be equal for all mankind that same sex marriage should be legal and performed in the court houses. It is not an issue if you believe in God or not or if it goes against the Bible, it is a persons rights to get married even if it is to a same sex partner. The only reason that the Federal Government should get involved is to help problems that are not equal for all citizens.
Federalism is a system of national government in which power is divided between a central authority and a number of regions with delimited self-governing authority. I do not think that federalism today is practiced as foreseen by the founding fathers. This is because there is a constant trade amongst the states and the federal government over certain powers. The federal government is afraid that state governments might not be able to handle certain issues themselves so they take it into their own hands and if this continues to happen, we will completely loose all state governing. It is hard to define when exactly the federal government takes too much power, but it seems that they have overstepped their bounds. Conservatives before recently have pledged to bring back more power to the states, but now that they are in control of the white house, they do not follow up on these claims.
ReplyDeleteI think the states should be given more autonomy because that is what creates diversity in the nation. And diversity can solidify and protect the nation in many ways, such as the ability for states to help other states with certain problems. This would work both ways and a national unity would be achieved through working together rather than coming from one overpowered government controlling everything. The federal government has expanded on education. George Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act has allowed the federal government to become more involved with education, which was a state power the federal government was supposed to stay out of. This could possibly lead to a universal education system where the federal government would have complete control over education and, once again, states loose their control in that field. The federal government should back off and allow the education system to operate as it was created to operate. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156260,00.html
This article examines the federal government’s growth recently. I found it interesting because it seems to contradict the ideas and views of politicians many years ago. While federal government involvement was fine, and sometimes the right decision, in some cases, it is not always the correct choice.
Federalism is the relationship between state governments and national governments; it deals with how power is split between the two levels and which government regulates which issue. When the nation was first created, state governments had all the power, while the national government had very little (as shown by Shay’s Rebellion). However, since that time, the national government has come to consume many of the powers that once belonged to the state government. I think that the underlying cause of this power shift is the sense of unity that people want to exist within in the nation. At first, this sense of unity was just a facade to show England that the colonists could exist without the help of another country. However, now that sense of unity is wanted within the nation to creates uniform laws and regulations. It’s an effort to standardize the fifty state governments. This way every state in the union exists on the “same page,” so to say.
ReplyDeleteThe power split though needs to be revised, I feel that the federal government has taken powers that belong to the state, and that if those powers remained with the state, it would be beneficial to the citizens of this nation. With this said I also think that some powers should remain with the federal government, such is the case with education. By giving the federal government control of education, we can standardize education among the fifty states. This way, students from all over the nation get the same curriculum and the same opportunity for success. On the other hand such things as gay marriage should not be controlled by the federal government. In my opinion the government doesn’t have the power to control gay marriage, but gay marriage is one of those issues that the government must regulate since it affects things such as insurance and taxes. For this reason, the regulation of gay marriage should remain with the state, that way some states will ban it and others will not. What this ultimately does is give people the chance to make their own decision.
Though the article I chose was old, it shows the basic ideas of federalism. By giving the federal government powers, we receive an increase in uniformity and decrease in variety among the states, which in some cases is great. But for more controversial issues, it is not, as the decision made will caused discontent within one group or another. Thus by giving those powers to the state, people can chose for themselves and the controversy is limited. In this way, the government is able to please a broader group of citizens.
ARTICLE: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156260,00.html
Federalism the division of powers between the Federal and State Government in which any power that is not explicitly given to the Federal Government is reserved for the State. But if we were to ask any common American citizen on the street what Federalsim is, how many would know this answer? When our founding fathers wrote the constitution they created an even balance of powers between the Federal and State government so they could work together in harmony and uphold the ideals of our nation. They also made sure to include the Bill of Rights to protect citizens from the government but how can this happen today when many don't even know the basis of how our government works. The government is beginning to abuse its power by believing that the American citizen is incapable of taking care themself and it is up to the Federal Government to take control. State governments are becomnig little more than pawns of the Federal Government and being baited by the Feds into giving into their wants. One such example is the HealthCare crisis. Before only states could require the purchasing of health or auto insurance but the Federal Governemtn wants to step in and make it mandatory for all citizens to be insured. This issue is very interestingly discussed in this article from The Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624021919432770.html.
ReplyDeleteThe three authors discuss the Health Care Crisis and the intentions of our founding fathers when creating the division of power between the State and Federal government and how these intentions are little more than memories today. It seems during times of crisis such as the recent depression or the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Federal Government feels it necessary to expand their power and prove to the people they're doing something whether or not what they're doing is truly helpful or not. The powers between the State and Federal Government has shifted again and it is time for the power to be returned to the people as it was intended by our founding fathers in the constitution.
The Stanford definition of federalism: is the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a center. I think the government needs a slight change, and no I don't think either that the government has taken too much power. Let's take education of example though. If the government were to not induce federalism, and compared to the population of the state, the funding was the same for every state and school were ran similar throughout the country. I think that would eliminate disadvantages for some or even out schools throughout the country. If the education was the same throughout the country there would not be better education in states. Let’s take Illinois for example, a few years back Illinois was rated one of the worst states. In New York, a student must pass a state wide test at each grade at the end of the year and pass to be allowed to continue on to the next grade. Also it would also support No Child Left Behind because every student would be offered the same opportunities. We have seen the government expand in many things, for examples, education- government was basically bribing states with money in order to get them to have NCLB (No Child Left Behind), and also same sex marriage.
ReplyDeletehttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/federalism/
http://www.heritage.org/research/education/ednotes46.cfm
In Arizona education was an issue for them, and the government was getting involved. The Government wants to incorporate NCLB into the state of Arizona, but the state already had two test to result if they learned during the past year of school. The State came up with A Charter State. States could be given the choice to enter into a chartering agreement with the US department of education. Under these terms the state is responsible for test results along with freedom and flexibility to control federal funding. This is a good way to do this, but what if it fails then what?
Reference.com defines federalism through the United States Constitution, as a fundamental aspect of American government, whereby the states are not merely regional representatives of the federal government, but are granted independent powers and responsibilities. I agree with the above definition because it shows that not only are states part of the country but have individual rights and abilities. Today’s current government could be considered both as the founders wanted and also how they didn’t want our government to be controlled. No government is ever going to be perfect and should be constantly monitored and adjusted accordingly. While the federal government speaks for the country and its citizens as a whole, the state government speaks for individual rights of citizens. Some will believe that the federal government has too much power and that the states should have more, but Time magazine shows its concern that the states will get too much power with the new healthcare reform. They write of how states who have already universal healthcare such as Massachusetts, will respond better to the reform as they are prepared. Other states that are not as prepared will have issues with adjusting. This makes it easier for lobbyists to achieve their goals with less expensive payoffs on the state level. Even more on the states powers is that some pushed for an amendment to pass that would allow states to opt out of the reformed healthcare plan thus preventing many of its citizens from receiving the necessary healthcare that they need to survive. Although the federal has gained power in the past decade, they have exchanged some power with the states (marble-cake effect). Already the federal government has bailed out banks and big business companies with billions. If this continues to happen we could be headed for a severe change in government as the federal powers take control and the states are left without a say. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1928943,00.html
ReplyDeleteFederalism: Power that is divided between a central government, and smaller regulatory units
ReplyDeleteThe founding fathers grew up in a very different time from us. The age of federalism is clearly starting to show in a way the founding fathers could have never imagined. In the article I found, called “the Acid Test of Federalism” (found at: http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/49.html), the government is pushing its powers as far as they can go. A law against having a gun near a school was considered to fall under interference interstate commerce. Clearly this is a stretch, that is really hard to even believe, but did the founding fathers even consider the risk of a school shooting? There was no precedent to the issue, as there were no major incidents of school shootings back then. So federalism is clearly not practiced the way they envisioned, but they could have never seen our modern society coming back then. As a result we need to break away from tradition for the common good. Who could argue that no guns around school is bad, however poorly justified?
The way I see it, the Fed has gotten more power for the greater good. When it really boils down to it, it’s an equality issue; keeping the states equal. When you look at the gay marriage issue, it could be one of the greatest civil rights violations since the 60’s. How people can be denied the right to LEGAL (not religiously recognized) marriage, simply because their spouse is of the same gender, is clearly a breach of personal freedom. That being said, some states choose not to allow gay marriage, while some do and there is no acceptance of the union if moved to a non-supporting state. This is an issue were the Fed needs to step in and level the playing field. If we power up the Fed, it will me that all the states will fall under the same regulations making them equal. It can’t be justified as “equal” to have a couple move to Illinois, only to find they are no longer married. The Fed, as a result, isn’t big enough and needs to grow to save the states from each other.
Giving states autonomy would be a mistake. There are so many different views between states, that each of them would run like a separate country. Illinois could support legalizing some drugs, while Indiana could ban tobacco even. Although slightly exaggerated, these could be the kind of conflicts we could run into without federal regulation. In the Illinois vs. Indiana example the two states would argue over drugs coming into Indiana, and Indiana trying to infringe on Illinois’s freedom, It could even erupt into a tiny civil war (although very unrealistic). This is just one example; imagine if the Fed doesn’t find a way to rule on gay marriage. The issue is already red-hot between states, and given complete freedom the friction would only skyrocket. Nobody considered slavery to be a spark for war in the beginning, but then the Fed ignored it and guns started to go off. Is the issue of gay marriage enough to start a war? I don’t really think so, but then again that’s what people said about slavery years ago. More freedom for the states means less unity, less equality, and more arguing.
We have seen the national Government expand, especially recently, with Health Care and education reforms. Although I don’t agree with the Health Care bill, I do support its mindset; level the playing field. The Fed is responsible for keeping people equal and free, which is hard to do when states feel the need to vary wildly. How is it a free state if someone does not even have a chance at equal education, when compared to another state? The Fed can use the powers to raise educational standard all around, as well as equalize a much divided nation.
Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a national (federal) government and various regional governments. As defined by the United States Constitution, federalism is a fundamental aspect of American government, whereby the states are not merely regional representatives of the federal government, but are granted independent powers and responsibilities. This definition is exactly what the founders of federalism intended. However, they left room for interpretation and that is where it went wrong. The federalism that we have today does follow the definition because the definition is vague and does not say how much power each should have. The federal government has taken advantage of this and has used its power to take more and more from the states. The reason federalism was put into place was to keep us from becoming a monarchy that they fought for so long. Today we are still far from a monarchy, but some of the states power has diminished. The federal government can give money allowances to states for following what the federal government wants them to do. This is not fair and is causing the states to give up some of their power and ability to rule their own state. The federal government typically does this when they feel that there is a common problem across the nation and they need to step in to fix it, such as no child left behind. This expansion of federal government can be bad for the states because it often times limits what they can do even though they are more in touch with the problems of the state than the federal government is. The federal government needs to give back the power that the states deserve and could do better things with than the federal government.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156260,00.html
This article relates to federalism because it highlights the drastic change from the federal government being focused on giving power back to the states during the Reagan administration to using their power to impose their own ideas on the entire nation. It also focuses in on the idea that education is going to fade into the hands of only the federal government, which is something we could all do without.
Federalism is defined as a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. In my own words, it’s simply how the power in our country is broken up between the federal and state governments. Our country has switched sides on this topic many times throughout the last couple of decades in order to find the perfect balance of power. I think that the best way to do it is by giving more power to the states. The Federal government can deal with the more prominent current issues, and keep the country working as a whole. Although, I feel that this is how the founders wouldn’t have wanted to see federalism run. They would probably have wanted the national government to have as much power as possible. My interpretation of the way federalism works is, let the federal government maintain unity between states, and let the state governments get their own state functioning as best as possible. The Federal government has recently crossed the line by becoming involved in education. I definitely think that education should lie in the power of the states; because they are more in tune with what their people need, instead of letting the federal government take a broad view of their ideas and apply them to the entire country. Such a topic like education cannot be generalized to blanket an entire nation. Education, in most cases, must be tweaked to fit the needs of separate states. I think that in our country today, federalism is working fine. There is a good distribution of reserved and granted powers to keep the national and regional governments happy. Concurrent powers that lie in the middle are given to both governments to keep a feeling of equality. I found a good article about federalism in education...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.examiner.com/x-661-Education-Reform-Examiner~y2009m2d21-New-federalism-in-education
States should without a doubt be in control of their education. I think that it is ridiculous for the federal government to step in and monitor test scores, because “Schools that are considered to be failing in one state would look just fine in another state.” This is just another example of the federal government not trusting the states, and stepping in and making matters worse.
Federalism is the idea of a federal organization of more or less self-governing units meaning that there is not one big government that has taken over but has help from the states and local governments. I believe that our founding fathers did not want our government to be taking over everything, and they wanted it to have boundaries for the states to manage what they could. I think that the federal government has not taken too much; they just control more of the states opinions, and bribe them to go a certain way on situations. Like when Wisconsin wanted their drinking age to be 18, but the federal government didn’t want that and they wanted all the states to be the same so they offered them money to. When it comes to things like rules of the road and speed limits the state governments should be able to decide what they are, but I think that the state should have more say in the other things because they are living there they are the ones who see what is wrong or what they need to make better. Our national government has expanded by taking over the education decisions, drinking age, job opportunities.
ReplyDeletehttp://chronicle.com/article/University-Leader-Calls-for/49164/
I found this article that states how Obama wants to make a higher number in graduated college students, but they are not looking at the costs of the universities. “The federal government needs to play a bigger role in financing in higher education” says Mark G. Yudof, president of the University of California System. They are cutting back on grants, but the president is pushing higher education, it is going two different directions and it will not work. This article is showing that the Federal government is giving some money to needy students but the state is cutting back because they are using it for other things that the government is telling them to. Mr. Yudofs purposed an idea to “include offering financial incentives to reward colleges with high numbers of Pell-eligible students, adding supplements to federal research grants to help pay for graduate programs that train researchers, and starting a program in which colleges would compete for federal funds based on strategic measurements such as graduation rates and provision of additional institutional support for students from low- and middle-income families”. This stating that the way he sees it is that if they are doing good in school to reward them, and to help with government research to pay off their college payments. I think that the federal and government need to decide who is going to take charge in this particular set up because clearly it needs to be looked at more.
Federalism is defined as the idea of a federal organization of more or less self governing units. I see this definition as the federal government working with the smaller government bodies such as the state government. I feel as if the government is interfering too much these days with roles of government that are suppose to be left up to the states. Even though I feel like the government is doing a good job of balancing it they could take a step back. I do not believe that this is the federalism that our founding fathers intended it to be. They had a more fine line of what was in the states power and what was in the federal government’s powers. Today it is a whole mess of changing powers and exchanging money for them. The federal government should allow states to control things such as education and other responsibilities that the states would better understand because the issue is much closer to the states than the federal government. Federal government should worry about much larger issues such as the economy, war, and taking care of the nation as a whole. Allowing states to have the power to control responsibilities that the federal government is not allowed also helps the states because they are more aware of their state’s problems and face those issues everyday whereas the federal can not oversee those and pay close attention to them. There needs to be a more defined way off sorting the responsibilities among the two powers. The government is constantly dangling money in front of the states to sign over rights to the federal government. Although this money is important to these and especially in the economy we have today, states should not be forced to sign over rights for this money like we see in the Race to the Top educational program. If the government has money for programs like this why do they require the states to hand over some of their rights when they should be helping the states and specifically in this case the education of the citizens of the United States? While the economy has hurt a lot of states in America this shows us that the government needs to step in and help the hurting states because it is clear that the states are having trouble maintaining themselves in certain areas such as fiscal responsibilities. Overall I feel there is a pretty good balance of state and government powers but the government could step back in a few areas and help out in other areas. I used the article http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=889897&category=OPINION to help me.
ReplyDeleteFederalism is the division of powers between the federal government and the states. All powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states. I think up until this decade, federalism was practiced as the founding fathers intended because there was a fairly equal division of power between federal and state governments. Now I think that the federal government has too much control and is taking away too many of the states powers. Perhaps the beginning of the federal government’s expansion occurred during the Bush administration with the No Child Left Behind act. Education has always been a huge part of states power, but with NCLB, this power was taken away. The attached article, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1625192-1,00.html, gives some history on NCLB and how it has effected education across the country. With NCLB, the federal government lay down laws that targeted failing schools but were not intimate enough to give these schools the support to help them. On the other hand the state government is close enough to the particular school to offer a more practical solution to the situation. Federal control also “watered down” education standards in some states creating a problem instead of fixing one. Because of rigorous standards that are not tailored to each state, some states contained schools that cheat the system in hopes of keeping funding. The program overall has been a flop. If the federal government gave control of education back to the states they would also promote innovative thinking between fifty governments rather than just one. This could create a quicker and more effective solution for failing schools while improving overall standards of education across the nation. The shift in power was most likely caused by the public’s cry for help in the trauma surrounding September 11th. During this time Americans wanted to see a strong federal government that could protect them and bring on necessary changes. The effect was a power grab and loss of state government control. Although a strong federal government may have been necessary at the time, America is now ready to see some devolution. Instead the federal government seeks to further infringe on state’s rights and now has its eyes set on marital laws.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree that the Federal Government is expanding its powers to a point that is excessive, I believe that the model that our founding fathers made is no longer applicable to our current nation.
ReplyDeleteFederalism is defined as a system of government in which the power and control of government matters is distributed between the national and state levels. As such there are powers that should be reserved for each, and although the federal government is larger, there are just some issues that states must have reserved, because they know best for their people. The current state of government is far from what the nation’s founders were looking for, but that’s not entirely wrong; for we are a much different nation and a much different people living in a new and different world.
Despite this, I do believe that the Federal Government has been expanding beyond that which it should, even for the modern world. There are some powers that they have taken that shouldn’t have anything to do with the federal government, such as all of the recent influences on business and banking. Furthermore, although they have the best intentions in mind, plunging us further into debt with all of their reform plans and procedures seems … illogical.
As for the states, they deserve far more autonomy, and should be able to set more regulations for their own issues. The states should be in control of more personal affairs, such as regulations on marriage and abortion. The Federal Government should focus more on resolving issues between states and border controls / foreign affairs. Though, despite this, I am not entirely opposed to the Federal Government offering the states incentives for reform and improvement, because it is ultimately still their decision.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/states_rights_and_our_libertie.html
This article outlines how state’s rights have been reduced and even slandered over the years, and gives the example of the Mormons, who were prosecuted all across the eastern states and then resolved to settle in the mountain states, where the state governments protected them and their rights. As such it can be seen that the state truly knows best for its residents.
Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided, by a constitution, between a central government and regional governments. If the founders saw the state of the federalism in our country today, I don’t think they would believe that this was the same government that they originally had worked so hard to organize. I’m sure they wanted peace and happiness for the citizens of our country, and the struggle and inconsistency between the federal government and the state government is anything but peaceful. There is so much discontent that the citizens have about who has the power over certain issues. I feel that the federal government has taken too much power from the state. With topics such as gay marriage and abortion, the power to make the rules should be given to the state. Honestly, the federal government has bigger things to worry about that influence the whole country rather than spending so much time worrying about what individuals are doing in their own lives. If anything, the power over these matters should go to the people themselves because it’s their own life that they’re dealing with and neither of the governments should have a say in personal choice. But since that’s apparently not possible for some people to live with, the power should go to the second best--the states.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/states_rights_and_wrongs.html
In the article I chose, the author talks about how these topics (gay marriage and abortion rights) are controversial between different states. According to the author, the federal government’s control over these regulations is taking away from the states’ individuality with their opinions. He believes that the states all have “cultural steam” that needs to be released, and it can only be done by letting them adopt their own laws. Making the states’ rules different from each other can cause different problems such as the question about same-sex couples being legally married in one state but not in another. But the author suggests that “it might be healthy for our body politic to return these issues to the states, for principled contention and compromise are essential parts of our citizenship”.
Federalism is a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units such as states or provinces. Federalism is a system in which the power to govern is shared between national and state governments. I believe the founders intended for each state to have more power than they do know. For each state make it's own rules, amongst it's people who have all decide on their laws. Right now i feel that the government has taken away to much power from the states. i feel the states should be able to do what ever they want, with in reasoning though and not have to hear from the federal government. Yes they should be given more autonomy, the right of a self-government community. I would like to argee with what 1.D.Granq said about the "federal government maintain unity between states, and let the state governments get their own state functioning as best as possible." Yes the federal government should have some laws that applie to all states and keep them all at peace with each other, but i feel that each state should have something unique about them. Like their drinking law is 16, like in germany, or weed is legal, or that there are no speed limits, for if its the states and it's people deciison them i mean why not have these laws or even other ones.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15576
Gay marriage laws is a good example because it is up to the states to decided if they want it out no, as 11 according to that article have stated argeed to gay marriage laws.
i dont know if the federal government has the power to make gay marraige illegal all across the state and i feel they should have this power because it's a personal issue that the stat should decide on.
Federalism is the division of powers granted between the federal governments and what is left to the states. I do not believe that federalism is practiced in the ways which the founding fathers first wanted, however, the country has advanced in many ways since then, so it would have been nearly impossible for them to assume how to run the country in its current state. Our current federal government has a lot more control over the states than what was originally planned in the Constitution. National government is on the border of taking way too much control over state government, which at first might not seem that bad – every state in the country has the same set of laws and regulations to follow and each state is equal in the way in which it is run. However, our country is far too large for one governing body to be able to control everyone’s lives. The state governments should be trusted more than they are now and given more power. Sure, in some cases the federal government should be allowed to set some regulations for states to follow, but in the end it should be the states themselves trying to protect the individuals. For instance, education should not be controlled by the federal government. Instead, states should have the final say in which ways they want to control education. It makes sense for the federal government to set some regulations on education since we are all from the same country and there are some standards everyone in the country should be able to meet, but in the end it should be states who decide what students in the states should have to learn by the end of their schooling, especially since there is such a huge difference between the way people live throughout the country. One thing I disagree with that some people here are saying is the control of gay marriage and abortion rights. While some people are saying that gay marriage and abortion laws should not be controlled by the federal government and left to the states to decide, I believe it should not even be left to the states – instead, it should be left to the individuals. Why should the government be allowed to tell a woman that she has to keep her child? If she does not feel capable of raising it, then the state should not force her into having it and bringing it up in a world where it is not wanted. Maybe the states could have a law as to how late someone can be aborted, but other than that I feel it is personal choice and the government should not get involved in anyway. Same goes with gay marriage, why should the state government be able to decide who does and does not get married? If two people are in love, no matter what their genders, the state should not get to say they cannot get married and receive the same tax and health benefits as a couple of opposite genders. I believe in those two ways neither state nor federal government should get involved.
ReplyDeletehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html
This article from the Wall Street Journal actually brings up a new amendment the federal government could adapt about federalism. There have been many people throughout the country unhappy with the amount of control the federal government has had over the state governments and this new amendment that Barnett brings up would attempt to solve that. Who knows if anything like this would actually work, but it is worth looking at to see in what ways we could improve our country.
Looking at the constitution, “federalism is a fundamental aspect of American government, whereby the states are not merely regional representatives of the federal government, but are granted independent powers and responsibilities.” This basically means that it’s the division of power between the government and the states. At first most of the power as we know belonged to the states but as we can see those powers have become more of the governments as time has progressed. Some people feel that the civil war was an event that killed state rights but the article that I read really gave me good overview that it was the 17 amendment that made sure the state stayed out of Washington. Because before the 17 amendment the states had a big political presence in Washington and today they have barely any. And the other thing that also made it worse was when the 16 amendment was ratified which allows the government to subject us as people to a direct income tax, providing congress with more money and power. And this ideas came form the article that I read which was
ReplyDeletehttp://federalist.com/2009/06/21/what-doomed-federalism-in-the-united-states. I liked this article because it made me get a more clear idea of how the sates lost their power. In my opinion now I feel that there are thing that the federal government has taken from the states that if given back to them would help us as a country as a whole. For example we directly don’t pick our president the Electoral College those which is something that the states should have control over. Why let the government have control over which they choose that will eventually become the most powerful person in our country. But I agree with Tej when he states that there are things that the federal government should control like education. In feel that education is something that our country need to work on and everyone in this country should get the same education. Because like in econ we are getting replaced by other countries because of the lack in our labor force to go on and beyond what is expected. And I feel that the fed. is practicing like the Founding Fathers intended. They understood that those who are inclined to power are also tenacious defenders of that power once they have achieved it. That is why they insisted that the Senate be elected by the state legislatures rather than by popular vote.
Federalism is a system of government in which the power is divided between the states and the Federal Government. I believe that Federalism is not exactly the way that the founders intended it to be like because there are so many things that have to be taken care of. In some ways it is practiced the way that they planned but not in every category. In my opinion there are some things that the government has to much power on like controlling who they marry and what they consume. They also show a mass amount of power by bailout out companies in states to control the people. However, there are some things that the government needs to step in on like education. With the states in control of education there are a lot of different policies and techniques in every different state going around that will just cause our education system to be chaos. So we need a strong governmental control to keep everyone on the same page. The states should be given more freedom like the control on illegal substances and age requirements. We see the national government control expand when they really want something. They use the “carrot stick method” by bribing or giving out money to the states for doing something that the Federal Government wants.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/20/education.poll/index.html
This article relates to my beliefs in federalism and how the federal government should be controlling the schools a little more in exchange for some federal funding. Seventy-two percent of mothers favor more governmental influence over local schools in exchange for more money. Many also think that the school day should not be lengthened but it the school year should be longer. Fifty-Seventy percent of people support adding extra school days to the curriculum. The public is split as to whether or not teachers should make more money if there students do better. This article is important in federalism because it shows that many do think the government should be involved in the education system. If the government does not get involved more in the education system then the states will all have different ways of improving education.
Federalism in the United States is defined by Wikipidea as is the evolving relationship between U.S. State governments and the federal government. The ongoing endless struggle for power between the States and the Federal Government has presented the interesting issue of what the founding father’s originally intended for our country. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of our founding father’s could have never predicted the country could have become what is today. So much has happened and so many advances have been made in our country that I believe our founding fathers’ intention for federalism has become dated and is no longer qualified to be our guidelines. Therefore, I feel like the answer to this question is no were not following our founding father’s goal of federalism, but at the same time I don’t think that matters because over 200 years later obviously a ton has changed.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don’t believe the Federal Government has taken too much power at all. Even if they were overpowered, I don’t think that would be the worst thing to ever happen to this country, too. If the states aren’t getting the job done, I feel like it is the Fed’s job to step in and right the ship. For example, with the disastrous state of Illinois’ politics over the last year with our governor situation and our open senate seat the Federal Government could have stepped in and helped to spare us from some of the embarrassment while fixing the mistake. The argument could be made that it was purely a state affair and that the state should handle it. However, the state has already shown that they could not handle it and has shown they need help.
Although I do think that the Federal Government should have a lot of power, I also think that the states should be given more autonomy to an extent. The states should be in control of themselves until they screw it up (i.e. Illinois last year). The Federal Government should have the power to step in when necessary.
http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/federalism-today/
This article is about how California had become the second state after New York to ban the sale of trans fat. Then the article talks about how the founding fathers’ would feel about this and similar issues of the time. It directly and intentionally relates to federalism.
Federalism, to me, is the division of rights and responsibilities or the federal and state governments, but I also like how Tej said, “Federalism is the relationship between state governments and national governments” which deals with the powers given to each, and also accounts for the overlaps. I feel like the federalist government which we live in is a very fair and perfect for our society.
ReplyDeleteI think that the federal government has enough power. I believe that our government is set up perfectly, with our “marble cake federalism” set-up. I like how there is some overlap which gives the states a chance to correct the federal government if they disagree with those laws, such as taxes. This system is perfect for our country because of the relations between state and federal governments. The federal government understands that in certain situations, one which comes to mind is the speed limit in Montana; the state knows the best interests of its people.
My article was about a “worst case scenario” for federalism, but specifically in the state of Massachusetts. The article talks a lot about minimum wage. The senator and state representative propose the idea of a minimum wage increase of $1.50. This is a perfect example of federalism, and how the powers overlap. While there is a set national minimum wage, Massachusetts has the right to raise its minimum wage to whatever price it sees best fit for its people. The author though, complains about how nobody wins in this situation, because companies must pay more, and the workers now have higher taxes, so there is a no win situation for the state.
I disagree with Alexander Schwab because I think that this expression of power by the state of Mass. Proves how well our governments, both state and federal, are able to work together in order to perform a task the right way. Without state governments having their own rights, there would be no reason for a state government, everybody would just have to live by the rules and laws set in place by the federal government. I feel like the government could not do the nation justice because of the different living situations which people in different states have. People in Alaska do not have the same needs as those in Florida, so it is important for a more localized, state government, to be able to control their own section.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/state_issues/worst-case-scenario-federalism.htm
Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a national government and various regional governments. As defined by the Constitution, federalism is a fundamental aspect of American government, whereby the states are not regional representatives of the federal government, but are granted independent powers and responsibilities. Today, federalism has been molded into something completely different than the Founding Fathers intended it to be. Powers that should lie in the states hands have slowly been pulled into in hands of the federal government. Now almost every decision about things from marriage to local education is decided by the federal government. This leads to a major disconnection of needs of the citizen because important decisions are made by people who do not experience everyday life in the different states and communities. Power should be given back to the state representatives because they are truly the only ones who can make important decisions for the particular needs of each state. Federal government has taken on way too much power over the states. Government is supposed to tend to every need of a each citizen but by taking on so much power and decision making, they are really lessening the connection with the people of America. In the “No Federalism on the Right” article by David Boaz it illustrates how the federal government has taken too many powers away from the states which led to almost everything being controlled by the national government. Recent instances where the government has expanded includes Bush's, No Child Left Behind Act. This act establishes national education testing standards and also makes every local school district accountable to federal bureaucrats in Washington. Slowly but surely decisions in the local schools and school districts will be decided straight from Washington. Also in 2002, “election laws imposed national standards on the states in such areas as registration and provisional balloting”. If that isn't enough power to be taken away from the states, the federal government also took into their own hands drivers licenses and regulations. The federal government are also trying to impose on gay marriages. Bush tried to ban gay marriage in all 50 states but it did not pass. Marriage laws are a matter of the independent states, the federal government should not impose on these types of state laws that have always been state decisions. The federal government needs to give powers back to the states like they were years ago. It is the only way for the people to feel heard and have all of their needs met.
ReplyDeleteArticle Used: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156260,00.html
Federalism is defined as, “a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units”. The United States has been making an effort to follow the tenth amendment ever since the constitution was written. I believe that our founding fathers would have liked to see the states have more control in government than the balance currently installed today. The founding fathers wanted to unify the states and create a basic set of laws that could apply to all the states. They left the more specific rules and regulations for the states. The reason that states need more power is simply because they know what the people of their state need. Some of our national laws are not fit for other states. The No child Left Behind Act is a clear example of the national government being too involved in government that should be dictated by the states. The act places too much emphasis on test taking, and if a school does poorly at the testing they will not get proper funding. Education should be left up solely to the states because they know what works for their education. The national government should only get involved with states that have a struggling education system. I would like to see the states given more autonomy. The United States is too big for a national set of laws to apply for every state. Government will fail if there is a blanket of laws that do not work for certain states. The national government should be there to bail out suffering states, making sure the states do what is best for their people, and regulate common sense laws. The United Stater government will be more successful if we shift to a government with an even balance of federal and state government.
ReplyDeleteRichard Samuelson brings to attention many good points on why the federal government needs to stay out of many issues. He explains that the government needs to stay out of cultural issues. Examples of cultural issues include abortion and gay marriage. The author explains different scenarios like if a gay couple is recognized in Massachusetts, should this couple be recognized in Ohio? Samuelson says that it is only healthy that these issues stay with the states, but the transition is difficult. He says the key to a government with successful federalism is if states respect the differences of other states laws (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/states_rights_and_wrongs.html).
I think federalism is the idea that powers within a country are divided between the State and the Federal governments, instead of being held solely by either. The benefit, as well as the problem, with federalism is that it is a very loose term. Although the 10th amendment grants states the powers not given to the Federal government, the Federal government often tries to take some powers that some states have. For example, when the government tries to make legislation on gay marriage, the states complain because they already have laws in place that they don’t want nullified by a Federal law. On the other side of the coin, when a State tries to make a law that goes against the ideals of the country as a whole, the government often tries to intervene. For example, medical marijuana is legal in California, yet federal government agents are still legally allowed to arrest people for possession. I believe many of the ideas of the Founding Father’s concerning federalism are outdated. When they were writing the Constitution, they were concerned about the British and about getting all the states on board. Because of this, many of the articles in the Constitution are in place to avoid a monarchy and the issue of slavery (in order to appease the southern states). Both of these things are not an issue on today’s society, and on the same token, there are many issues in today’s society that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen. For this reason, the issue of federalism should be influenced by current issues and not dated ideas. I believe new laws or regulations should start in the states and then be adapted into Federal law. The states could be used as guinea pigs to test out new laws to see if they are successful. If they are successful, it could be used as evidence that it should be made a Federal law.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/07/new.jersey.same.sex.marriage/index.html
This article deals with New Jersey denying the right of same sex marriage. This is the kind of thing that should be tested in the states before it is made a law for the entire country. Right now it would be almost impossible for our entire country to get behind the idea of same sex marriage. But if a few states allow it, the country could observe the effects in those states and then maybe they would change their views on the subject.
Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a national government and various regional governments such as the federal government and the state governments. Defined by the United States Constitution, federalism is a fundamental aspect of American government, whereby the states are not merely regional representatives of the federal government, but are granted independent powers and responsibilities. Each state with their own legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch, states are empowered to pass, enforce, and interpret laws, provided they do not violate the Constitution. The founding fathers did this so that they would have a system of checks and balances between the federal and state government so not one has too much power. The Federal government has more powers than the state government to maintain unity. The federal government is the only one to have the power to make treaties and to coin money as well as declare war. The state government has to right to regulate age restrictions and marriage laws and many other aspects of life. The difference in the government’s powers is why federalism exists. The founding fathers wanted it to be cut and dry layer cake federalism that you can clearly see the limits to the state and federal governments. Though in reality we have a marble cake federalism which is more of a blurred line between the powers and gives more abilities that both can do such as tax people and education. Much of the problems we have having today is does the federal government have too much power. I believe they have just enough that they do not need any less or much more because regulating or putting a minimum on certain aspects like the drinking age just make it easier for the state governments. The state governments are only there to regulate our lives not to control them so if they have a lot less power than the federal government that is how it should be. Though the lines are blurred the state should still and always have less power than the federal government or we are in jeopardy of losing unity. For my article I choose to use “ON POLITICS; A Request from Camden: Take Our Schools, Please” http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/29/nyregion/on-politics-a-request-from-camden-take-our-schools-please.html?pagewanted=1 because it was about the state government taking over a school that was in need of help. Though it does not talk about the federal government I still felt it was a good federalism article because it demonstrates that the state government should be the ones in charge of the education.
ReplyDeleteFederalism in the United States is the evolving relationship between the U.S. State and Federal governments. Both governments are in charge of making sure that the other government doesn’t become too powerful over theirs. Federalism is very important because it allows each state to have a role and say in our federal government, while still being able to be different from the rest.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the founders of federalism intended for it to have the same “idea” but now a days the Federal government has been in charge of a lot more things. As of late the Federal government has been getting more and more involved with the education system even though that is considered to be the State’s responsibility. The government is dangling money in front of the states to sign over rights to the federal government. Even though States could really use the money, they are forced to give up their rights to the federal government. I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing that the Federal government is getting more involved with education because they feel that certain states aren’t doing as an up to par job as they should be. Therefore, the Federal government is stepping in and trying to improve the educational system. However, this just shows that the Federal government can “step in” whenever they want or feel like it’s necessary. That type of power may be “too much” in a sense, but when it comes to hard times, I believe the Federal government must expand in order to help the country, especially if it’s during a time of war.
After looking at article http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=889897&category=OPINION I believe that there needs to be a more efficient way off sorting the responsibilities between the federal and state powers. Now that the United States is in a recession, and the economy is hurting certain states so badly, I believe that the federal government MUST step in and help the states that are having serious problems. Our current federalism system, I believe isn’t that bad and is pretty balanced and the Federal government seems to only step in where there is a problem.
Federalism is the division of power between the U.S. federal government and the State governments. In my opinion the way federalism is practiced today in the U.S. isn’t the way the founding fathers intended. I believe that although the powers are split, the federal government still has too much power because it seems as though that they get to decide which powers the State actually given and denied. Because of this power granted to the federal government to dictate who has which powers, they in reality hold all the power. I think that when the founding fathers enacted federalism to the United States they knew that powers were going to have to divide differently than they intended with the changing in time. Since the division of powers change with the occurrence of the change in the needs of the people, I also believe that the federal government has taken too much power for themselves and only give the powers to the states that they know they can manipulate. For instance the states have the responsibility over education but the federal government is allowed to pass a law (NCLB) that requires schools to meet a certain requirement. To me that doesn’t sound like a clear division of powers. Although I think that the federal government has taken maybe a little too much power I also believe that the states shouldn’t be given, I don’t believe that the states should be granted much more power. If the states are granted more power than the federal government then individual states could have severely different laws than the others. In my opinion, States being too independent from the federal government could prove dangerous to how government functions in our country.
ReplyDeletehttp://baselinescenario.com/2009/07/22/federalism-james-surowiecki/
This brief article talks about how even though the constitution grants the federal government many powers such as the control over the armed forces and the ability to print money it also leans towards more state autonomy. I agree with the idea that states should be a little more independent from the government but not completely independent.
Article: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/nochild/
ReplyDeleteThe topic I chose a an example of bad legislation is the no child left behind act.
The division of power between federal and state government has always been and uneasy one simple. This is largely due to tensions between politicians with large ego’s (there for all politicians). The best solution to this is political stalemate is bribery or as it is often called “carrot stick legislation”. yes bribery has negative connotations but political “compromises“, as long as they don’t include direct personal gains, are actually preferable for it drives cooperation. This night sound horrible but it is often better then forcing change on bitter state like Bush did with No Child Left Behind. No Child left behind requires schools to improve without funding change.
Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. I believe our founding fathers intended for federalism to distribute equal rights to different parts of the government, while giving the citizens equal freedom. However, I believe today it is not practiced as the founding fathers intended it to be. The federal government has taken upon too much power; overall, dealing with issues that they should have no say in whatsoever. As the years keep passing by the federal government gives takes away its citizen’s freedom. When looking at if the states should be given more autonomy, I believe they should. The founding fathers intended for them to be given equal rights just as our federal government. The issue is that the federal government starts to override and deals with the issues that the states government should be dealing with. They need to be giving more of their self- governing rights back. There are many issues where the federal government has stepped in when they defiantly did not need to. The issues include abortions, gay marriage, schooling, and some of the Acts that have been enforced. In the article I found after 9/11 happened the government came up with the federal Real I.D Act. Proponents of the act believed Americans should be stripped of essential liberties for the greater safety of the country. They made this in regards that it would protect us from terrorism. However, this act that was imposed is a violation of the 10th Amendment because it is redefining privacy, creating new bureaucracy, and increasing fees and taxes overall not really making any of us safer. If Pennsylvania were to adapt to this act drivers license would become a standardized national identification card with a machine- readable zone containing valuable personal information. It would just open the doors of much security betrayal. This act overrides its citizen’s personal identity in so many ways. Their freedom just completely stripped from them. If this does pass the federal government will be overstepping their boundaries within the states once again. A total of an unfunded federal mandate of $11 billion to states who are already struggling as it is. Personal and private data will be swiped away little by little under this act and the federal government will just keep getting more power that is much unneeded.
ReplyDeleteEven since our founding fathers created our government, there was debate over how much power the federal government should have. Still as times changed, new problems arose and were solved; the general debate over federalism has stayed much the same. To me federalism is devolution of certain authorities from the central government to the states in order to create more specific laws and regulations that would enhance the lives of its citizens. The states are able to take the overarching laws that the central body creates, and adapt them specifically to the needs of its residents.
ReplyDeleteEven though there has been a fairly equal balance of power between both sides, today it seems the line is no longer clear. The founding fathers were themselves divided on the topic, yet now it seems the central body has grasped too much of the states powers. Its intentions may be good, yet since it was created to help the entire population; it cannot deal with subjects that deal with the individual, like education or health care. Each of these is created to fit a person, but if the government makes them too universal, then it would defeat the purpose of each. The government expanded into the states rights out of the fear from foreign threats, such as during the cold war, or the attack on 9/11.
I believe that out of fear people gave up too much of their dear rights. The states need to become more autonomous if the people wish to have such things as healthcare or better education. The central body cannot create a system perfect for the United States, but unlike them, the states can almost tailor make polices that would work best for its residents.
In the article, it says how the president is clearly involving the government in the economy, and how he plans to restore, and even though this is not so much the acquisition of state rights, but more of the duties of the private sector. Even though he has an idea of how he wants to help the government, there are no real goals, which is the difference between his and FDR’s plans. Even though some are similar, FDR had an ultimate goal of restoring the nation back, while the “Obamanomics” seems to just throw money at the problem with no real end in site.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/35015774
Federalism can be described as a type of government in which power is split between the federal government and different areas’ government. One of the main ideas behind federalism is too avoid having too strong of a federal government.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, federalism is not practiced today the way the founders wanted, because the federal government is beginning to bite off more than they can swallow. Although some states are doing a very poor job in certain areas, it is still too much for the federal government to try and control all of the issues. In many cases there may not even be an issue but if the federal government feels strong enough feelings of disagreement with the idea than they often choose to seize power and run things the way they like. The U.S. is too big for the federal government to maintain all of this power, and different places hold different types of people, so the laws and policies should be adjusted accordingly. That being said, a couple of reasons that the federal government has seized so much power to this point has to do with the poor management of policies and laws by certain states, and also the corruption that has been displayed within the governments in states such as ours. If the states make proper decisions and show that they can control their own territories than in my opinion they have the right to possess that control. Therefore it is up to the states to make adequate decisions and when they do that they certainly have an argument that they deserve control. The federal government should act as a check system that only takes action when the state has proven themselves incapable of controlling their given area.
The article that I chose displays federalism from a very different perspective. The author believes that the states in this generation have way too much power and that they federal government is the only government that is reliable enough to control the people of our nation. The reason that I chose this article is because it shows federalism from an opposite angle than the one that I chose to take.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45383-2004Jul12.html
Federalism is the division of power between the state government and the federal government. I think that recently, the federal government has taken back too much of the power intended for the states. If the states are able to control something, I think they should be allowed to. For example, I do not think that education should be controlled by the government. If the Federal government tries to equalize all the education systems, it ends up bringing all the schools to a lower standard because there is no competition and no reason to do better than the government requires. I think that the Federal government is too detached from some issues to really be able to understand and help solve problems. Therefore, the states are in a much better situation to take care of things because they are closer to the people and represent a smaller group of individuals. I believe that the federal government should be responsible for issues that could not be resolved by just one state, and the rest of the responsibilities should be given to the states. I think that the national government has expanded recently because people are afraid. The economy has been crashing and people feel like they need more guidance. By coming together as a nation, people think that they will be somehow saved from their problems since such a powerful government is now responsible for fixing it. This is not usually the case though, and I don't think that having the government take over when we get scared is the best solution. The article I found discusses reasons why Bush's “No Child Left Behind” law may be doomed to fail. For one, the government often makes demands that are not reasonable. The law required some schools to make such huge improvements that they were doomed to fail. The government cannot expect schools to improve without necessary funding or time. Also, the government did not have money to support the program and that was a reason that schools failed. The program acted as if every year students would test the same, when in reality one group might be perfectly fine and the next year students might fail. This doesn't necessarily mean that the school didn't teach those students properly, and might just mean that that group of students needs more work.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1812758,00.html
Federalism is defined as a system of government in which power is divided between a national federal government and various regional governments. I do not believe that federalism today is practiced as our founding fathers intended it to be when they created it. I think that the government was intended to be more of state to state. I do not think they intended it to be just one person says something and every state follows that rule/law. I think they wanted it so that states have their own say about the laws in there state. I think the federal government has taken too much power. I think that states should be given more self governing. I think this would give more diversity in laws. I think that some states should not have to follow certain laws that other states follow. I think that not all laws are necessary in other states. I think the government expanded after September 11, 2001. The government had to become most aware of what was going on in each state. The government needed to expand at this time in order to keep control of its citizens I think. But I also think that the government took some things to far like locking down schools all the way on the other side of the country. I think that states should have their own set of laws that do not go with laws that are in every other state. But states should also use their ability to edit their laws, for example, the age limits on voting, drinking, driving, etc.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.new yorker.com/ talk/ financial/ 2009/07/27/090727 ta_talk_surowiecki
The author of this article talks about how the government uses money to aid states in terrible economic times. It states that in some states federalism is used by lowers costs on certain items but in essence raising taxes and cut government spending. I think this is wrong because like know people are having a hard time being able to pay for food and other necessities, they don’t have enough money to be able to pay for higher taxes and such.
The debate over wether or not the federal or state governments should more power is definately a heated one. There has even been a war that was sparked by this issue. Essentially, I believe that the states should have more powers than the federal government. Similar to the structure of the Confederacy during the Civil War. The states make most of the laws and the federal government focuses on the issues that affect the nation as a whole. I believe the reason that the federal government is taking more power for itself is one of these reasons:
ReplyDelete1) The federal government is comprised of power hungry individuals
2) The federal government feels that the states will not handle situations the way they want them to
3) The federal government feels that certain state controled issues effect the country as a whole.
However, federalism today is, at least in theory, the same as it was when the nation was founded.
The link I have is http://www.civilwar.com/states-rights/jefferson-davis-to-lowndes-county-miss-citizens.html. This is a letter from Jefferson Davis about state's rights and the power of the federal government.
Federalism is a national government system in were the laws and power of laws is divided between the central government and the states that reign under the central government. Or in simple terms, federalism is a national government with any smaller units of government under the central government. Now I think federalism has gone too far, especially in the heath care. As stated in the article, “Is Federal Government Running Roughshod Over Constitution?” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,574105,00.html), if the bill becomes a law, “For the first time in American history…the feds will force you to buy insurance you might not want or may not need or cannot afford”. People will lose their freedom if the heath care gets pass. I understand that the government wants to keep their citizens as safe as possible, but if someone could not afford the national heath care because of financial issues, which is something our whole nation is dealing with, then the “government may fine you, prosecute you and even put you in jail”. What is a poor family going to do if they are barley making ends meet without health care and then the next day the government makes them pay for a heath care system that they didn't even want. That is talking away the people's freedom of choice. People are scared now in this time will the economy, but people are giving up their own freedom to have the government control our lives. I don't think that what we have done with our government is what the founding fathers intended it to be. I think that they wanted the national government to stay out of the state's business on issues that should only be the state's problem. I'm not saying that the national government should do nothing on issues that the states are facing, in that case they should help them out with laws that help them. But I don't think it is right for the national government to bribe the states to change their laws for extra money. I Don't think the founding father had any idea that the national government would need up doing that to the state government to get what they wanted. And now the "powers are slowly taken from the states and the people — and before you know it, we have one big monster government that recognizes no restraints on its ability to tell us how to live", now that times are getting hard, we should all work together to get out of our hard times, but instead we are letting the government slowly take control of us to the point when everyone realizes that the national government has too much power it will be to late. The founding fathers intended the government to be in constant check by the state government, local government, and the citizens. By giving the state and local government more power, and not having the national government stick their hand in it, it will give more on what the people want and less on what the national government wants. The national government should only set guild lines on how to life your life that is both free and still protected, but still give the state government the right to pick the laws that is best for the people living in its state
ReplyDeleteFederalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority or main authority and they constituent political units. I believe that the federal government is too involved in some areas, but in others needs to be more involved. Take education for example. States are supposed to have more control over their education systems yet the money used to fund these schools is given by the fed simply because there is a standard that the federal government is trying to uphold. States should be able to deal with their own funding of education based on what the people of the state expect. If people are paying more taxes to education and are funding it more, they will receive a better education, and vice versa. The fed should be more focused on spending its money elsewhere in order to better the states as a whole, while the states work to better their citizens as a whole. This would make it so the fed is slightly involved with everything, but still very involved in the large issues, while the states involve themselves with smaller issues that would otherwise be distracting to the fed. Something the fed should be a little more involved in is something like the marijuana laws. While New York charges a small fine, which is usually not even collected for possession, Arizona will put you in jail for 6 months minimum for a first offense. The fed should become involved with this because states are becoming divided and have very differing opinions on the seriousness of the marijuana problem. While the fed has laws against it saying it is illegal to possess or ship and you will be arrested for possession, there is a small town in Colorado, which actually sells marijuana without being arrested. In cases like these which could possibly set the states against one another and cause a lack of unity in the country the fed should get involved in order to maintain the order of the country as a whole.
ReplyDeletehttp://coloradostatesman.com/content/991571-medical-marijuana-bill-passes-first-hurdle
This article discusses the passing of a bill that will allow medical marijuana merchants to sell medical marijuana to patients and will allow doctors to prescribe it without fear of incarceration. It relates to federalism because it is Colorado’s state bill being passed and even though the federal government has clear laws against the use or sale of marijuana.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/05/killing-federalism-in-health-care/
ReplyDeleteFederalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a national (federal) government and various regional governments. Federalism today is not how our founding fathers intentionally wanted to be practiced. Since the turn of the past decade we have seen more national (federal) involvement on issues rather than by the states. A recent example of this is President Obamas’s healthcare plan. Currently healthcare is regulated by the states, and now obama wants to have the federal government to take over the role of regulating it. Democrats believe that the best way to reform the health care system is to centralize decision making and regulation within the federal government. These actions about the new health care plan go strictly against the principles supported by the constitution. In recent years the federal government has be taking too much power. It has got to a point were if you question the authority of a government official that you can be arrested. Also the government can your phone calls, look at your credit card statement, look at your emails, and so much more without having any cause? The government today allows torture as a use of getting information out of enemies to the country even thought its stated in the constitution that its prohibited. The constitution states All powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States respectively or to the People. The states should be granted more power and should be allowed to make decisions for there own territories as long it follows there own state constitution and the united states constitution. For instance some states that allow same-sex marriage are always intervened by the government. The reason behind the government expanding I believe is that the government wants more power and control over its people which is against what the founding fathers believed. With all the technology we have as a nation the government can do more things and have more control of its citizens.