How The United States Government Does Not

Truly Reflect A Federalist System Essay, Research Paper

I believe that the United States Constitution does not truly reflect a federalist

system. In fact, I believe that the federalist system, in which states have

considerable power to exercise, was all but abolished by the United States

Constitution. In answering this question, .American Government,. by Peter Wolf,

gives a few examples of what Federalism meant back in the late 1700.s, and why,

during the framing of the Constitution, there was a big debate between federalists

and anti-federalists. .That Federalism furnishes the means of uniting

commonwealths into one nation under one national government without

extinguishing their separate administrations, legislatures, and local patriotisms.

(Wolf, 63). Back in that time period, the anti-federalists wanted many limitations,

if there was to be one national government, where as the federalists wanted one

national government controlling all the states. Federalism as a whole attracted

greater attention than any other subject during the framing of the Constitution. It

is easy to understand why the anti-federalists didn.t want to get involved with

another .central government. considering they had sought freedom from an

oppressive British government. But, in 1787, the federalists won the debate during

the Constitutional Convention, .which resulted in sovereign states giving up a

significant portion of their authority to a new national government…. (Wolf, 51).

In the beginning, though, only a few powers were granted to the national

government. This was before the establishment of the executive and judicial

branches of our government that we are familiar with today.

With the creation of the three branches of our government, I believe that

states had lost some considerable power. The executive and judicial branches are

federal branches of government, while the legislative branch is the only branch

that is represented by each state. Some may argue that this is the most powerful

branch of our government, but I believe that the executive branch has the most

power. Congress does have considerable power to make laws, but the president

can veto, which in my opinion is the biggest force that you can hand to one person.

After being vetoed, Congress could still make the law, but it is very hard to get a

two-thirds vote, especially when there are representatives who have the same

views, and belong to the same political party, as the president. This limits the

state.s powers tremendously, not to mention that any law that is created will be a

.federal law..

Another example of the United States Constitution.s lack of reflecting an

anti-federalist system, is that states do not have the right to override a federal law.

Recently, there has been discussion in Alaska, and also California, to legalize

marijuana for medicinal purposes. Even if Alaska decided to go through with this,

then the United States government would intervene and tell them that it is

unconstitutional to overrule our .national government.. This is a glaring example

of how the states do not have considerable power to exercise, as would be

accepted by an anti-federalist system. If we were in this type of system, states

would be able to decide what is right and wrong, and be able to establish laws, and

enforce them, using their own discretion. Also, state administrators are ultimately

responsible for implementing many federal policies, whether they are grant or

regulatory programs adopted under federal guidelines. In this day in age there are

fifty states, and state responses to joint programs vary tremendously. Even back

when there were just colonies and commonwealths, individual responses to laws

would vary significantly.

Furthermore, .…under the original constitutional design, the national

government was not to intervene directly in the affairs of state governments.

(Wolf, 76). I believe that if states had considerable power to exercise, then they

would be able to make their own laws, without interference from the federal

government. In such a case, states, like Alaska and California, would be able to

decide for themselves what is in their citizens best interests. I.m not saying that

this would be a better way to run our country, but this would better represent an

anti-federalist way of thinking. After all, if there were separate laws for every

state, it would be hard for people to know every state.s laws.

The history of the United States government has seen how there is a

national dominance over the states. Decentralizing the government wasn.t brought

forward, since the early 1800.s, until the Nixon administration and the concept

of .New Federalism.. .The move toward decentralization was broadly supported

by the Republican Party. Revenue sharing was inaugurated by President Nixon to

transfer national funds to the states, without st

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать