An Overview on Federalism Through the PH Debate Context The problem with concepts in political science like federalism is it’s taken for granted. When advocates and critics debate the pros and cons of federalism in the country, it seems as if it’s a single and straightforward issue and idea, devoid of nuances. The need for clarification and understanding of the concept is important to raise the level of its discussion in our society.
Paleker provided a conceptual analysis of federalism by delineating and integrating three theories seeking to explain it (309). The first theory called classical theory explains a legalistic point of view. It forwards a law-like definition by classifying conditions that must fit the federalism criteria (304).
…show more content…
Obtaining his Oxford DPhil in Politics by focusing on the subject, he proceeded with an analysis of the works of political scientists specializing in federalism who have extensively written on the subject starting from Wheare in 1946 up to Watts in 2008. Consequently, he proposed his own definition of federalism as a political system wherein the government’s constituent units are of “equal status” (112). Meaning, each level of government is independent and not subordinate to the other even if they cooperate. Hence, they are equal. This in contrast with the unitary system where the national government has a higher authority than the local government units (Licos 2-3). His conceptual clarification presented a valuable insight on the intrinsic equality of each level, which captures the essence of federalism.
Integrating the preceding discussions on the definition of federalism, we define it as a political system where two equal and autonomous levels of government share sovereignty and power over the same piece of territory (Licos 2-3). Note that we interchange national government as the central or federal government and the regional government as
…show more content…
So, when talking about the federalist shift issue in the Philippines, we’re not only talking about federalism per se, but necessarily of these two other rules. Knowledge about federalism can be complemented by a least a basic understanding of these to better appreciate the value of our political system. With the status of the issue in the country (Licos), in the Philippine debate context, the concept of federalism, aside from its own definition and features, is tangled with our constitutional rules that must also be considered if we are to progress into a more meaningful and substantial discussion of federalism in the
Since the governments “creation” in 1776 when the united states separated from Brittan’s monarchial government, there has been substantial change in the powers of state and national government. From 1788-1937 power was divided strictly between state and national government, also known as Dual-Federalism. Under this, the power of the state government is greater than the power of the national government. Sometimes referred to as layer cake federalism, because the powers lay on top of each other but don’t intermingle. This was not favorable because there was a fear of northern dominance.
This specific system of government is described by the 21st Century American Government and Politics textbook as, “The allocation of powers and responsibilities among national, state, and local governments and the intergovernmental relations between them.” When deciding whether the Framers intended for federal or state governments to be supreme in the federal system, a divided answer among the Founders surfaces. If one was to present this question to Alexander Hamilton and his fellow Federalists, he would undoubtedly express his support for a strong federal government. Conversely, Thomas Jefferson and the anti-federalists were in favor of state government supremacy in the federal system and even resented the ratification of the Constitution.
“James Madison’s idea of the division of power between central and state governments is known as federalism.” (James Madison, Federalist Paper #51, 1788) The state governments have the power to make local decisions such as establishing schools, passing marriage and divorce laws, and to hold elections. Whereas the central government has the power to make decisions that affect the country such as, to provide an army and navy, set up post offices, and regulate trade. As James Madison said, “The different governments will each control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”
Monk, a Constitutional scholar. Monk, in this article, writes on essentially what federalism is and the history of it in regards to the United States constitution. Federalism, by Monk’s standards and definition is …”the sharing of power between national and state governments.” (Monk n.d.)
“Richard Henry Lee’s Objection to the Constitution” and James Madison’s “The Federalist No. 51” contend about the positive and negative effects of the Constitution. Both essays are important documents for early American history, and both contain valid points. James Madison, however, presents the better argument with his diplomatic, content, and logical approach. “The Federalist No. 51” begins with a question about how America can properly divide government power (Madison 1). Madison believes the Constitution is the answer because it gives the foundations and tools to keeping the power of the government for the people.
The central government has enough power to help some of the country’s major needs and the state government has enough power to help the state’s needs because the state’s needs may be more specific. From this, you may conclude that dividing powers between the central and state governments prevents
Throughout history federalism has gone through several substantial changes, such as the boundaries and balances between the state and national government. Due to this we have experienced several different era’s of federalism from the original “dual-federalism” to the “new federalism” and just about everything else in between. Dual-federalism also known as divided sovereignty was a optimistic belief that federal and state government could exist if their was a clear division between authority. The problem with this is that there was a clever mechanism in the constitution that reserved a powers clause in favor of the national government. Such cases held in Marshall court favored the national government “McCulloch v. Maryland(1819)”, “Gibbons
The Federalist Papers, essays written on behalf of the ratification of the Constitution, by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, are testaments to our Founding Fathers’ steadfast belief in a strong, national government; unified against the ills of those wishing to impose their tyrannical beliefs on the nascent country. More specifically, these eighty-five pieces of political brilliance truly shed light on just how divided our country was, with the Federalists believing in a national government, administered by a strong, core Federal system, and the Anti-Federalists, those who were opposed to the federal system, and alternately believed in a strong state system, with no strong, core federal government uniting the states. These Federalist papers were in essence a plea, then, to the people of the
Federalism a system of government in which power is divided, by a constitution, between a central government and regional governments. The Constitution restricts the power of the states in favor of ensuring enough power to the national government to give the country s free-flowing national economy. The framers’ concern with the national concern with national supremacy was also expressed
The writers of the U.S. Constitution were determined not to let a person get complete control over the new American Government. When a person gets complete control over the government it is called tyranny. If the central government had all of the power, the states would have no individual rights. In the city of Philadelphia, in 1787, some changes needed to be made in the American government. In order for the U.S. Constitution to stay away from tyranny, there were numerous amounts of obligations that needed to be met.
In 1787 the delegates of America believed that the Articles of Confederation were not capable of making a nation strong and untied so they decided to make a new governing document. The Constitution became the body of fundamental principles and rights by which the United States is governed by. In which federalism, separation of power, checks and balances, and balancing power between big states and small states became crucial. How did these aspects help guard against tyranny? Well… Federalism is one of the ways the Constitution help guard against tyranny.
Federalism is simultaneously one of the most foundational and perplexing constitutional principles of American democracy because of its intentional ambiguity. The debate over federalism has persisted from the framers to the current day policymakers. However, the terms on which the debate has played out have changed over time. The intentional ambiguity placed in the Constitution by the framers has directly contributed to the abuse of federalism and the decline in the power of the states.
This country was founded with the attempt to separate the federal government and the state government, known as federalism. The goal of federalism is to divide the power of state and federal governments, protect the rights of the state, and prevent tyranny of the majority. Throughout the years, federalism turned into dual federalism where the state and federal government were completely independent of each other and only shared a dependency on the Constitution. The united states suppressing now to cooperative federalism, the national government has assumed even more power, overruling the states with Supreme Court decisions and actions, and executive Orders. Furthermore, the Federal government should grant their state governments more power, due to the connection the state governments hold with their local people.
Interactions amid the provinces and the federal government, from constitutional issues to the most irresistible topics bang up-to-date in the country, are indemnified beneath the umbrella of “Federalism”. Authorities are shared so that on some matters, the state governments are decision-holders, whereas on the other matters, national government grasps the autonomy. In last twenty-five years, the upsurge of federal fiats on both governments, local and state, has shifted the power amongst state and national governments. Now, the national government is beginning to have more governance over the state’s engagements.
Federalism Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between federal government, state government and provinces government. While federalism has many benefits, among them is checks and balances between the federal and state government, thus reducing the chances of one party getting too powerful and abusing their power. Preventing one party from being too powerful and abusing their powers is a good thing. However, it comes with a price that federal and provinces (state and local) governments do not always see eye to eye and agree with each other, which turns into conflict.