Can the U.S. Government Still Be Regarded as a Federal System of Government - Essay Example

? Can the U.S. government still be regarded as a federal system of government? (29.01.12) Introduction Federalism and all that it symbolizes is the main strength of politics in the US. Federalism has given the executive and the states a lot of power. In the constitutional history of the US, the Supreme Court has been required to interpret rue about the meaning of federalism and mostly it has passed its judgment in favor of the executive instead of the states. However, the US Constitution has instilled lot of reliance in federalism right from the time the Founding Fathers first established the same. Federalism is defined as a governance system whereby the constitution partitions power amongst the state and central governments and both governments take direct actions relative to the people they rule, in terms of the prevailing laws. It is understood that both entities are supreme in the context of their respective spheres of authority (SINGH, 2003). The central and state governments are required to give their consent in the event of proposals being made for changing the constitution. This paper will examine the benefits of the federal system of government and whether during the last hundred years the central government has usurped most of the states’ powers. The basic objective is to determine whether the US government can still be considered a federal system of government. US Federalism In the US, the federal government is mostly understood as exclusively referring to the central government that functions from Washington DC. However, this belief is not based on accurate interpretations of the term federal government because it does not include the functions performed by other positions of government relative to the federalist structures. Federalism is viewed more as being a compromise amongst total concentration of authority and power and a loosely framed confederacy of independent states to govern large masses of people living in vastly spread territories. A good feature of federalism is that it retains power, traditions and local dignity while permitting the central government to deal with common issues. The core principles of US federalism are framed in the Tenth Amendment, which states that the power not assigned to the United States of America by the Constitution or that is not provided to the states are considered as being reserved for states and to their people (WEBER, 1999). Across America’s history, federalism has been defined in different ways. Cooperative federalism implies that the two forms of government are to work in collaboration with one another. Dual federalism supposes that the two forms of government are working separate from one another. Creative federalism relates to a combined planning and decision making system amongst the two. Horizontal federalism relates to the interaction and shared programs amongst them while vertical federalism means the conventional systems of federal governance whereby the actions of the central government are considered to be supreme as interpreted by the constitution. Every state in the US is characterized with its own positions relative to legal authority and political importance. Although states are not considered sovereign entities they can assume power and take actions relative to the functions of other governmental set ups (McKAY, 2001). The US Constitution had established division of authority amongst the state and federal governments that had initially put restraints on the federal government in areas of foreign policy, defense and the controls over currency and commerce amongst states. Over time, this bifurcation of authority has been diluted and currently the federal government enjoys extended authority relative to almost aspects impacting US citizens. However, despite such increase in federal authority, states in the US continue being very significant centers of governmental functioning. Over the years, there have been different policies enacted by different Presidents in regard to reducing the federal government’s powers and vice versa. The rebirth of federalism or the new federalism that gained significance under Presidents Reagan and Nixon, did not gain much strength in view of confusion about the effectiveness of policies relative to welfare and reforms. At the same time, it proved to be recognized by both the Presidents that states need to have greater autonomy in terms of additional responsibilities about how they conducted their functions, obviously by reducing federal powers (DYE and ZEIGLER, 2000). The significance of US states as legal bodies is immense because the Constitution recognizes their authority and strength. Presently, most of the criminal and civil laws in the US are state laws that also cover laws concerning commerce, traffic and family. Te most important example of state power in implementing laws on its own is the authority to implement or not implement the death penalty for convicted offenders on the death row. States have authority to lay down a number of varied rules that should be observed by workers and businesses. They also have wide powers to collect tax revenues that are spent on education, social welfare schemes and healthcare (GERBER, 1999). It is correct to say that states have significant constitutional powers and legal authority in performing their roles. However, they are subjected to two important restrictions: States have to abide by the US Constitution and have to comply with all the laws of the Federal government as provided for in the Constitution States are provided with relatively lesser financial resources as compared to the federal government. Any state laws that violate laws provided for in the Constitution will be declared as unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. If such laws prove to be conflicting with the prevailing federal laws, then also the Supreme Court will declare them as unconstitutional. At the same time the Supreme Court can also hold laws passed by the Congress as invalid if they are found to be unconstitutional. Past patterns indicate that the Supreme Court has held more of state laws as unconstitutional. This is because of the strong legal base that Congress enjoys, which has been expanding over the years. Under these circumstances it is clear that federalism in the US continues to be a strong force and continues to gain strength from the widespread political beliefs of decentralizing political powers (DONAHUE, 1999). It is apparent that no state as the authority to impose taxes to the same extent or efficacy as the federal government. This single advantage s allowed the federal government to attain the conformity of states by way of the Grants in Aid Scheme, which provides grants for states, although under specific conditions. The federal government has been using the services of local and state governments to manage this aid, primarily because it has the Constitutional authority to do so. Theoretically, this aspect provides the federal government with a lot of power over states that receive such aid (ZIMMERMAN, 1992). Benefits of Federal System of Government Currently, there is much support across the world for federalism and the past attitudes of disapproval towards the federal system is fast changing to beliefs that it allows a nation to have the best of everything in terms of, liberty, self rule and shared governance and diversity and coordination of the central government. A federal system of government enables the right of choice and exit and allows entities to make experiments relative to economic, social and political affairs. This is in keeping with the rational perspectives that dominate amongst citizens in free societies. Diversity and regional preferences are accommodated in a federal form of government. There tends to be unity in diversity because decentralization of authority enables flexibility to contain cultural and economic disparities. The tolerance of diversity under federalism prevents the central government from taking sides on issues that primarily relate to states. As experienced by many nations, a federal government is more democratic in comparison with unitary governance systems, primarily because public opinion is impacted by greater number of government levels (DiCLERICO, 1997). A federal government remains close to citizens because as experienced in the US, state governments are more involved in meeting the daily requirements and aspirations of citizens. Federalism creates circumstances whereby a strong framework is created for the nation’s growth and prosperity through centralized and decentralized policies and schemes. The systems permit effective dealing of political, economic and social issues. Above all, a barrier is created whereby the majority cannot dominate. Federalism led to the decline of political elitism but the new wave of elitism is becoming popular because of the patterns of globalization and increasing global awareness. Federalism enables solutions in situations in which specific states or regions feel that their concerns are not being looked into by the federal government. In such situations states can initiate their own actions, thus reducing chances of opposition and revolt in these regions. Legislative procedures permit authority to be evenly distributed over different regions, which does away with the possibility of citizens opposing the viewpoints of an individual legislature. Federalism has the unique characteristic of eradicating the likelihood of dictatorship because executive power and authority is spread across states. The system permits citizens to continue with their cultures, religions and traditions in freely and independently conducting their affairs in their respective regions. Federalism creates conditions whereby every region can pursue its own choices instead of what may be imposed by the central government. Does federalism usurp state power The conception of federalism that allowed greater power to states was born during the period when each state was viewed as an independent nation. But this viewpoint of the US changed significantly after the Civil War when the idea of federalism was born from the need of a Constitution whereby states were convinced to have their powers diluted in keeping with the solidarity of a united nation of several states. In the modern age, states tended to compete with one another in unconstructive ways and tried to provide benefits to their citizens so that others coming to the state would not receive such benefits. This is apparent from the manner in which Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Act (TANF) worked in terms of the block grants that were given in the name of welfare benefits. It was believed that federalism gave rise to wasteful expenses by way of duplicating government administration. However, many current programs administered by states have considerably reduced costs because the policies are coordinated by the federal government (BURNS, J., et al, 1999). There is widespread belief that the federal system’s taxation policy prevents efficient redistribution of income whereby money is often directed in the wrong places. However the concepts of revenue sharing that was dominant during the 1970s ad 1980s has been considerably revamped by increasing involvement of states, thus improving efficiency and preventing wastage of resources. A powerful federal government is necessary to have in order to oversee and regulate issues whereby interests of states clash. The federal government is better placed than states in maters relative to redistributing income because of the inequality amongst states. Moreover, politicians will tend to abstain from spending if all costs have to be met through local sources. Thus, it is evident that patterns of income inequality can be managed and controlled by the federal government. For instance, during the 1930s and 1950s was a period when the federal government was very powerful and there was considerable reduction in income inequalities. But during the later years of the 20th century, when the federal government diluted its powers and gave greater autonomy to states, the extent of income inequality has been consistently increasing in the country. It is thus evident that the federal government has not been extensively usurping power from the states but as been providing greater independence and autonomy in dealing with citizens’ issues. At the same time, the role of the federal government can be seen as very important in the context of achieving income redistribution in order to maximize utility for citizens (DAVIES, 1996). Given that federalism gives rise to some situations whereby local situations can be effectively dealt with only by states, it is practical to leave such situations under states’ control. Education is funded by the federal government but is largely controlled by states at local levels whereby citizens recognize the environment in which they should adjust. Similarly, in the case of transport, the federal government gives massive funding to states but leaves the decision making and implementation of policies to states and local governments. Nevertheless, the federal system prevents states from gaining excessive power because states can be taken over by factions that may not serve the interests of the entire nation. It is the duty of the federal government to prevent such factions and break patterns leading to control by special interest groups in states to keep the political and economic structure of the nation intact. This is evident from the manner in which the federal government dealt with racism in Southern states for several years following the end of the Civil War. Given that states are vulnerable to being impacted by special interest groups, it is imperative for the federal government to hold appropriate powers in this regard. Whatever powers that are held by the federal government are justified because it is important to achieve tasks better than what is possible by state governments. It is thus important for the federal government to hold on to specific sets of powers in keeping with the overall interests of the nation (PEELE, 2002). Re-birth of Federalism Federalism is understood as a governance system whereby the constitution partitions power amongst the state and central governments and both governments take direct actions relative to the people they rule, in terms of the prevailing laws. It is understood that both entities are supreme in the context of their respective spheres of authority. The central and state governments are required to give their consent in the event of proposals being made for changing the constitution. Very rarely does federalism appear in discussions and debates pertaining to modern public policies. A good feature of federalism is that it retains power, traditions and local dignity while permitting the central government to deal with common issues. The core principles of US federalism are framed in the Tenth Amendment, which states that the power not assigned to the United States of America by the Constitution or that is not provided to the states are considered as being reserved for states and to their people. The US Constitution had established division of authority amongst the state and federal governments that had initially put restraints on the federal government in areas of foreign policy, defense and the controls over currency and commerce amongst states but over the decades this bifurcation of authority has been considerably diluted. However the issue does filter through issues relative to domestic policies. It is correct to say that inter government concepts such as home rule and sovereignty have become important subjects in present discussions about the significance of issues such as taxation ad resolving the effective roles and extent and power enjoyed by the federal government, issues such as law enforcement, housing and education still need to be handled more effectively and responsibly. It is known that federalism was a matter of much significance amongst the Founding Fathers while framing the Constitution. The founders of the Constitution displayed a great deal of loyalty towards their respective states and were not inclined to provide unlimited powers to the central government. While framing the Constitution, the founders created a document that greatly succeeded in bifurcating powers while creating a balance in favor of the nation as a whole. However, it is widely perceived that over the decades the US has diverted from what was intended by the founders of the Constitution because the original intent was not to provide the federal government with extensive authority over issues relative to law enforcement, housing and education (ASHBEE, 1999). The issue thus arises whether the current balance power amongst the center and the states serves the nation effectively. This is relevant because issues have arisen about the validity of the re-birth of federalism in terms of whether a system created so strongly by the founding fathers will continue to work well under the present circumstances. It is now required for America to put an end to the ambiguity that characterizes the imbalance in the prevailing systems. It is important to remove the complexities in the system and introduce systems that operate with greater accountability and effectiveness. Federalism has always implied that there needs to be a power balance amongst states and the central government and the re-birth of federalism is much relevant in this context because there is a strong need for the system to function whereby the imbalance is reduced in achieving greater levels of efficiency. Diffusing the law making authority under a federalist structure is a protection against an uncontrolled central government. Sovereignty is bifurcated under federalism whereby the reduced powers of the central government prevent the nation from experiencing authoritarianism. References ASHBEE, E. and N. ASHFORD. US politics today. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999. Ch.8.  BURNS, J., et al. Government by the people. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1999. McKAY, D. American politics and society. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. Ch.4.  Federalist Paper number 39, to be found at: WWW.Federalistpapers.com  DAVIES, P.J. and F.A. WALDSTEIN. Political issues in America today: the 1990s revisited. (2nd edition). Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996. Ch.9.  DiCLERICO, R., et al. Points of view. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1997. Ch.3.  DONAHUE, J. The devil in devolution. In: CIGLER, A. and B. LOOMIS, eds. American Politics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999. Doc. 2.3 DYE, T.R. and L.H. ZEIGLER. The irony of democracy. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2000. Ch.14.  GERBER, M. Sources: notable selections in American government. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999. Ch.3.  PEELE, G., et al, ed. Developments in American politics 4. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2002. Ch.9.  SINGH, R. Governing America: the politics of a divided democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Ch.4.  WEBER, R. and P. BRACE, eds. American state and local politics. Chatham: Chatham House, 1999.  ZIMMERMAN, J. Contemporary American federalism. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1992. Read More