Week 6
Week 6 post is the 2nd of 5 Government post. Please remember in order for your post to count the first post of the week must be by Wednesday with at least two responses by Friday afternoon. Please take time to check you work from previous weeks to make sure that you have met the requirements. By the end of the summer students must respond to 5 posts, 2 Economics, 2 Government and 1 free choice.
Power Sharing in American Government
As you begin to read Plain, Honest Men (school begins in 5 weeks! ), you’ll notice that most of the arguments surrounding the Constitution involved the distribution of power. The question of power sharing remains central to American governance today.
This week, please consider this question:
Does the United States government appropriately divide power between local, state, and national levels? In your response, please provide examples and detailed explanations. If you believe one level should have more power than it currently does, be sure to defend that stance.
In your response, I also want you to consider the Supreme Court’s decision for the following cases: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and Arizona v. United States. (The links will send you to the official Supreme Court decision, but feel free to use accredited news sources to help you understand the opinions.) When considering these cases in your response, discuss whether the opinion(s) was appropriate in terms of power distribution only.
In other words, I’m not looking for responses that support or discredit the acts that were considered in these cases. I simply want to know if the Supreme Court made a good decision in terms of whether state or national government acted appropriately.
In other words, I’m not looking for responses that support or discredit the acts that were considered in these cases. I simply want to know if the Supreme Court made a good decision in terms of whether state or national government acted appropriately.
I believe that the untied states government does and does not appropriately divide power but i believe this differences in power is good. Since the state government is made up of local governments and the national government is made of state governments than the only way government would work was if there was levels of power so that the government as a whole can manage itself.I also believe that while sections of government might have more power over the other, each section of government has a equal word to defend in what it believes in and can testify that. For example,in the first case(National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius) even though different levels of government competed in what they believed in, it turned out nobody was right. Finally in the case (Arizona v. United States) we see how Arizona's government had its word but since the federal government had more power, the law that Arizona was trying to enforce was not completely passed.
ReplyDeleteSources
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/arizona-v-united-states/
http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_9e75e7be-c6e6-11e1-be1d-001a4bcf887a.html
You have an excellent explanation of the division of powers; how the national government is made of state governments and state governments are made of local governments. I hadn't thought of it that way but your argument makes sense. Maybe if the local governments had more power there would be a greater influence generated towards the national government and more cooperation from all governments wouldn't be bad either.
Delete-Kaila Hammon
So far as government obeys the constitution, the distribution of power checks out fine. For example, Arizona passed SB 1070 in an attempt to supersede federal law, which is in total disregard of the Supremacy Clause. Furthermore, it is impossible to enforce without unfair treatment of native-born Hispanic Americans who would not be carrying the immigration papers that they don't have. This is in obvious violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In the case of the PP&ACA, the federal government intervened in an industry that had gone septic, which is hardly a stretch of the Necessary & Proper Clause. While the PP&ACA's solution is imperfect, it does allow for states to implement their own alternatives, so long as they do attempt to remedy the situation, rather than ignore the act. For example, Vermont's single-payer health care will remain in place, and several states are considering adopting a similar system.
ReplyDeleteI like that you pointed out the fact that if national and state government work together, each can benefit from the laws passed instead of letting them ruin small parts of each. Our three forms of government should stop looking at themselves are the enemies and pass laws that can help everyone out.
DeleteThe National government has more power than the States, which have more power than each local areas within the states. For example, the Bill of Rights is enforced in all states, and they cannot lawfully go against that. The states can only make laws that agree with the federal government's laws, and cities can only make laws that agree with the state's (and subsequently the national government's) laws. So yes, the power is spread unequally, and is in the most part a consequence of how far each government's jurisdiction has hold. In reading Plain, Honest Men, I've found that quite a few of America's populous at the time only wanted a government that was there to check the laws passed by state governments. I do agree with this, but I also believe that the national government should also make laws itself to keep the integrity of America as a whole in check. States also should be able to make any law they want, but it must be checked by the National Government before it passes.
ReplyDeleteThe National government having more power than state and local government is very true. The reason the states have to make laws that agree with the national laws is because if these laws did not agree, many loop holes would open up and there would be more conflict in the government witch might hurt it. I also do believe that states or even anyone is allowed to propose new laws to the federal government, but a majorty of the house must agree to the new law. Correct me if i am wrong.
DeleteNo, what you're saying makes total sense, and that's just what I meant. Maybe though, instead of the majority of the house like a majority of Congress. And it makes sense that a state would have less power if it cannot make a law that goes against the national government's laws
DeleteI like that you pointed out the fact that the national government should pass laws to benefit the country. They should use their power to their advantage and help out each state so that their own personal laws don't have to be as drastic.
DeleteI completely agree that states should be able to create their own laws, as long as they are approved by the federal government. At the same time the national government should be doing the best they can to pass laws that satisfies the needs of the states.
DeleteThe distribution of power is the foundation of our country’s Declaration of Independence; the reason for the Revolutionary War. Americans have always wanted fair power dispersed amongst the government but some people think power is unfair and it continues to be an argument carried on today. I think our country does a mediocre job of balancing power throughout the local governments, states, and national levels but efficiently uses the laws of checks and balances. However, it seems that the government doesn’t always take the majority of the people’s interest, commonly reflected through local and state governments, into consideration. For example, in the Supreme Court Case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the issue was “whether Congress can require states to choose between complying with provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or losing federal funding for the Medicaid program; and whether, if the Court concludes that the provision of the Act requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional, the rest of the Act can remain in effect or must also be invalidated.” (Scotus blog) Though everyone involved in the court case was given a fair trial, they were still over-ruled and given no compromise or consideration. The Supreme Court suspiciously appealed to the national government the most. It seems that through the debates of whether the Affordable Care Act is constitutional or not, most people are against the idea and do not want their health decisions being made for them and believe that it will only hurt the economy however the Affordable Care Act was still approved. I feel that the national government has more power than the state or local governments. The national government often times has the most influence, money, and abilities to reinforce their ideas over state or local governments. I believe if the government used their power to enact laws that benefit the majority of the country’s wants and not necessarily the government itself, then people will be much happier and consider government ideas with more of an open mind.
ReplyDelete-Kaila Hammon
"[M]ost people are against the idea and do not want their health decisions being made for them and believe that it will only hurt the economy however the Affordable Care Act was still approved."
DeleteWhether the people believe the ACA will improve the economy or not has no bearing on how it will actually affect the economy. This is why we have representatives, because the people don't always know what's best for them. See Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court banned bans on interracial marriage decades before such unions had popular support.
" I believe if the government used their power to enact laws that benefit the majority of the country’s wants and not necessarily the government itself, then people will be much happier and consider government ideas with more of an open mind."
What is the government's interests if not the people? I fail to see how either of these acts, or any act I can think of, wasn't at least an attempt to better the people.
The Supreme Court rules on what it thinks is the most fair idea and the one that will stand through time the longest. Just because this one time, it voted in the National government's favor doesn't mean that it has power over the courts. During the Eisenhower era, when neither the president nor Congress could give a care about racial discrimination, the Supreme Court voted almost always on the side of racial equality during court cases. Even thought it was probably more profitable for the national government to turn a blind eye to racism, the Supreme court didn't care.
Deletehttp://civilrights.findlaw.com/discrimination/race-discrimination-u-s-supreme-court-cases.html
(In the above link, I'm looking at the cases from 1950-60)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe distribution of power is so unbalanced it's comical to even say states have rights. The federal government holds final say on everything that happens in the country. The Supreme Court ruled that SB 1070 was Constitutional as was Obamacare, but the President says that if AZ calls for support of ICE for an illegal alien, that has not committed any prior crime he will ignore it. He has even go on to set up a hotline if people believed they were being racially profiled. Even the balance of power in the federal government is a joke, presidents have ignored the Constitution,Supreme Court decisions and bypassed Congress. This has happened on three cases inparticular that I believe should be mentioned, Lincoln suspending habeus corpus during the Civil War, Jackson when after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee in Georgia he went on to evict them anyway to Oklahoma in what is now called the Trail of Tears. John Adams suspended perhaps the most precious freedom that we enjoy, the right to free speech until the next election cycle of course so it could not be used against them by the Jeffersonian Party. Plain and simple I think individual states should have the power to nullify federal law.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the power is unbalanced but not as much as you stated. Although the national government has more power than the states, states sill have word. We can see this in Arizona v. United States when Arizona was trying to do the national governments job. If the national government had much more power than there would have not even been a large case about this but there was and at the end it turned out no one was right.
DeleteExecutive abuses of power are unconstitutional, and bypass the proper order of things at all levels of government, not just the states. However, while doing the research to prove you wrong about your point on immigration, I actually came around to your side. Labor provided by illegal immigrants increases the GDP, while their presence drains tax money. These impacts balance fairly close to zero, but it's notable that the increase to GDP benefits the entire economy, while individual states are forced to foot the bill of immigrants' social programs. It stands to reason that states should be able enforce immigration as it applies specifically to themselves, and the surviving provision of SB 1070 seems like an appropriate way to handle that.
DeleteSource
http://www.analysisonline.org/site/aoarticle_display.asp?issue_id=1&news_id=140001400&sec_id=140002434#IMPACT
In response to the first comment, the national government should be more concerned with this issue. They have put these laws in place they should support them. The national government has plenty of power (they apparently have the power to force people to buy healthcare), they however are not using this power appropriately as they are not concerned with the issues of supporting what they decide. They create a law or regulation then when they fail to support it and uphold the states take over and enforce it then get slapped on the wrist for doing it. The national government truly needs to begin to use its excess power for protecting the country and not forcing the populous to do certain things. I truly believe that states should have more power to enforce their own as well as the federal laws. They also should be able to decide what is and what is not appropriate for their own region and its current situation.
DeleteI find that some of your argument is biased and a bit confusing. For example; Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus was an instance where he was completely ignoring the Constitution. Article one, section nine of the Constitution states that "The Privileges of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless when in Cases of Rebellion of Invasion the public Safety may require it." The civil war was a rebellion on such a grand scale that the only way to ensure public safety would be to suspend the right temporarily. There are many arguments for and against this action, but I find that Lincoln is generally seen as a successful President who did what he had to in a time of chaos.
DeleteI also find it odd that you seem to support SB 1070, but your main argument is focused on disparaging the actions of "Presidents [who] have ignored the Constitution..." The Supreme Court found that parts of SB 1070, such as that which allows police to make an arrest without a warrant and that which forces immigrants to carry their immigration paperwork with them where ever they go, are unconstitutional.
Finally, I would like to add that the creation of a hotline for those being racially profiled is not necessarilly an act worth vilifying, nor does it seem to destroy a state's rights in any way.
I applaud that you pointed out some times when the president disregarded the Constitution. But at the same time, I don't think the inbalance of government is as extreme as you make it out to be.
DeleteBonni I admit that I am bias on this issue and I get that this post is confusing. The hotline itself is not villifying states rights (I think its a stupid use of resources, but its not violating) the fact that the Federal Government has sued a state for doing the FEDERAL government job is asynyne. Also the President, as i said, will not deport any noncriminal illegal alien.
DeleteI understand how you feel. I simply wished to question and clarify a couple of your arguments.
DeleteI agree with you on a lot of the points you made. One thing that amuses me is that the federal government would not act on illegal immigration. That is why Arizona made their own law. SB1070 was not a perfect law but it was at least an attempt to stop the trouble we have with illegal immigration in this state.
DeleteI feel that the United States government divides power between local, state, and national levels in an appropriate way. Some may argue that this division of power between the three are not equal, and it shouldn't be. If local and state government had the same amount of power that the national government did, the laws of each county and state would vary far too much for the country to control. For example, in Arizona v. United States, the US stated that it would be a state misdemeanor for unauthorized immigrants to work in Arizona. Now this was the law put forth by the national government. If the local government were to then pass a law stating that the work of unauthorized immigrants was legal, we would be in direct contradiction with the country. Therefor, we would have no concrete form of justice. By providing more power to the national government, the US is able to maintain justice in every state.
ReplyDeleteThere is indeed always going to have to be a slight tilt of power to the direction of the federal government in order to oversee and regulate the affairs in individual states, as their localized governments are provided to be smaller than that of the federal government, all states united. However, it's also very important that this tilt is handled with care and not abused such that state rights are also taken away - very difficult balance.
DeleteAlex I agree with your statement that it is a difficult balance, and I believe in practice it is not balanced right now.
DeleteI agree that if the local and state governments had the same amount of power as the national government, the laws would vary too much. Each region of this country goes through different hardships and it would be far too conflicting. However, I do agree with Alex that the tilt must be handled with absolute care.
DeleteThat is a perfect example, Katie, of why power is not divided equally in our government. When the national government establishes a law that applies to all states, a state may not establish a law that contradicts that of the national government, for example, if state officers were given more arrest power for illegal aliens than is provided by the federal government, there would not be a fair trial. If all states gave this authority to their officers, the national government could not keep track of it's felonies.
DeleteI do believe that the distribution of power in the United States government is unbalanced, but is neccessary. The National government has more power than the states and the states have more power over the local areas in the states. As long as it remains constitutional, the distribution of power works out fine. The Federal governmen has the last say, but it is important for the states to have their own say in things. For example,in the court case Arizona v. United States the state of Arizona wanted to pass SB1070 so that they could enforce federal law themselves. This decision however disregards the Supremacy Clause and gives the state government as much power as the federal government, which is not right to do so because the federal government has the final decision and therefore would not follow the system of power in which the national government has the dominant overall power. The National government has the most power to keep the nation in check, but I also believe that the national government should make a better effort to pass laws that will satisfy the needs of the states. States should be able to pass a law that they want as long as the national government can approve of it.
ReplyDelete"The National government has the most power to keep the nation in check, but I also believe that the national government should make a better effort to pass laws that will satisfy the needs of the states."
DeleteI understand where you're coming from, but if it comes down to constitutionality of a law, how would you suggest the federal government handle that? Would you propose a national amendment?
Though the division of power among local, state, and federal governments is in no way equal, the divisions are appropriate due to the many checks and balances among them. In other words, I believe each level of government has befitting proportional power. The states are given the power to diversity and innovation in writing and passing laws so long as they comply with the preexisting guidelines of the federal government and more importantly-- the Constitution, the focus point of our nations mandates on the distribution of power. For example, in the ruling of Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court struck down 3 of 4 provisions of the bill deeming them in noncompliance with the Constitution's clear explanation of the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration as they may interfere with the nation's general foreign policy. However, to balance this power, Congress agrees to collaborate with states such as Arizona on immigration policy so long as there are highly skilled professionals with proper training enforcing said policies. So though the federal government has the final say on state laws, most of the time, this "interference" is completely justified. If state governments were allowed the power to pass and enforce individual laws without the federal government check to make sure that law is in compliance with the Constitution, we would not be the "United" States.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the amount of power the national level has over state and local governments is what keeps us united. The final say the national government has is beneficial to the United States. These divisions are appropriate.
DeleteI like that you pointed out that the "interferences" the federal government has in the state governments are justified because they protect the universal rights of American citizens.
DeleteIn theory yes there is a PROPER balance of power, whether this be an imbalance for the better or even balance, whatever you so desire. Basic point is that there is an issue in practice as the states are denied their Constitutional right to govern anything and all things that are not assigned to the federal government. Unfortunately in the case on SB 1070 which was chosen for discussion this cannot be shown, all you can see from this is that the Supreme Court finds it inappropriate that the state would protect its own borders and enforce immigration laws in place by the federal government. The absurdity of it all is that the federal government is doing little to nothing to enforce its own laws and regulations. In reality even though this bill was allowed to be passed does not mean that the powers are not out of balance; the government has still shunned the state of Arizona for its actions. The federal government in fact totally changed at one point when it was decided that the current government under the Articles, did not carry out its job. The government has in fact lost its balance and I truly feel we have lost sight of what out Framers had in mind and the current people in charge just want the power for themselves. The Framers avoided the hunger for power and had high hopes that this people would remain good. With this and the ever changing dynamics of all parts of the country the need for unique localized fix to unique localized problems. Not all solutions lie in the federal government, from SB 1070 (Arizona's needed fix to protect the borders) or to the job losses in Detroit (due to the "modernization" of car factories and machines replacing the men on the lines), there is never one solution that can fit everyone. Not only is it more beneficial for the people but returning some governing rights to the states that were intended for the states from the start restores the balance of power to the proper intended balance by the men who started this country.
ReplyDeleteI found some of your points to be very interesting. However, I believe it may be inadaquate to site the Framers' opinions as an argument against the federal government. For one, we cannot truly know what the Framers' thoughts were, especially as even they disagreed on how much power to give the federal government versus the state government. Second, we have changed greatly since the creation of the Constitution- although it was flexible enough that it still remains the basis of all lawmaking today. Originally the states had about as much power as the federal government. This began to change after the Civil War, but it was not proven that the federal government needed to have more control until the Great Depression. Although this led to a change so that the federal government incited more regulation and thus aquired more power, I do not believe this proves that this peope is no longer "good." Localized fixes are important, but it is also important that the federal government has power.
DeleteThe makers of the United States Constitution created a system commonly known as "checks and balances." This system is not perfect. However, it is the arrangement that creates the closest thing to equality within a federal government. Since this system exists, the federal government is able to have more power than the state or local governments without necessarily incurring an over abundance of power.
ReplyDeleteThe case disputing the ACA is a good example of how the system works. Some claimed the law was an overextension of the "necessary and proper" clause of the constitution. It was up to the Supreme Court to decide whether these worries were correct or not and the evidence indicated the latter. It does not always come out this way. From the cornerstone case of Marbury vs Madison, the Supreme Court has had the ability to overturn laws enacted by congress which are deemed to be unconstitutional. If part of the federal government over-steps the bounds of its authority then another part of the federal government has the ability to check its power. If state governments over-step their bounds, the federal goverment as a whole has the same ability.
It is very important that the United States has an overarching authority, as has been evident ever since the chaos of the civil war. "United we stand. Divided we fall." The only way we can stay united is by allowing the federal government to keep us so. The Supreme Court ruling against SB 1070 is an adaquate example of a time when a state government got out of hand. Parts of the law were obviously unconstitutional which is why they were negated when the federal government interfered.
Undoubtedly, the federal government should not only be regulated by other members of the federal government. This is why the United States is also democratic. The people vote for their President and for their representatives in Congress. They choose who they wish to be in power and they choose to let those in power regulate themselves for the sake of efficiency and stability. Local governments have the least amount of power, but they also have the greatest voice. Women's right to vote, equality for different races, and even many everyday traffic rules: the laws which are seen today as unquestionably just all began at the local level.
Although the United State's local, state, and federal governments are irregular and sometimes fall out of line with justice, their balance is as impeccable as a flawed creation of mankind has ever been.
I completely agree with everything you said in supporting that it is necessary the federal government utilize checks and balances to keep us united. I especially loved the fact that you went beyond explaining how the federal government checks state governments and state governments check local governments and explained that different parts of the federal government can check each other if something seems unconstitutional. (i.e. The Supreme Court overturning laws passed by Congress). Most people seem to blame the federal government for many of the country's hardships because of their power--but these checks and balances they implement keep us as one united nation.
DeleteThank you! I tried to take a wholesome view of the situation.
DeleteAs a nation, the United States has reason to be proud of its government. Although it is impossible to find an unflawed government system, our original republic has done its best to support a rule "by the people, and for the people." However, because government and economics go hand in hand, the flaws that greed and corruption breed have found their way into politics—but that is another story. The U.S. government has meticulously been molded in order to ensure an efficient mode of checks and balances in every aspect. Local, state, and federal government will obviously maintain varied jurisdiction (federal over state and state over local), while at the same time maintaining an overall balance of power to ensure the statutes of the Constitution are carried out. The local government must abide by the laws and regulations that their state has laid out, while the state government, likewise, has to abide by the laws and regulations the federal government holds. In the case of Arizona v. U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government upheld its power on immigration regulation, striking down three out of the four points in SB 1070. Without the federal government’s authority over state laws and bills, state legislatures would be free to disregard any constitutional restraint that dictated their decisions and the United States would no longer be united.
ReplyDeleteA fundamentally equal separation of powers is vital to any democracy, as when left unchecked, such powers may easily list into an area of inconsistent power play. As previously noted in various posts, the system designed under the US Constitution to regulate these powers are 'check and balances' between the judicial, executive, and legislative branches, as well as determining a balance of power between the state and federal governments.
ReplyDeleteWhile there were comparably very few states around at the creation of the Constitution, early Americans obviously possessed a much different perspective on government, and perhaps due to recent independence, seemed to hold a much more cautious view of a centralized, uniform, federalism (As highlighted by Rhode Island's refusal to ratify the Constitution until 1790 - nearly three years after it was originally put forward). Over the past two centuries, as a national American identity has formed, and societal attitudes changed, we still look to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
The US has expanded. While the Supreme Court's making of decisions limiting state power may seem unsympathetic and deaf to the plight of an individual state around 2,000 miles away, such as Arizona v. United States, if the court finds that parts of the law violate the Bill of Rights, I believe they are well within reason to strike them down. Consistency and fairness in regards to the Constitution are what bind us together as a nation, not a superfluous piece of state legislation.
This was very well phrased. I like that you specified the difference between when the Constitution was created and today while still specifying that it is relevant.
DeleteI completely agree with the statement about how the country has expanded. The United States has nearly 4 times as many states currently than it has when the country was born. With that came new people from all over who brought in different needs that need to be addressed by the government.
DeleteThe division of power in the United States is a commonly discussed topic. Some believe that states should have more power and others think that the national government should have more authority. Recently, it seems that there has been more of a power shift towards the national government. That is usually the case when a Democratic president is in office(most Republicans shift towards state rights).
ReplyDeleteThis country seems to go through a cycle. Usually after every 1-2 terms the power will switch sides to another party. This same concept applies to our economy. We go from no regulaions to many regulations. This, in a way, balances our country to meet the needs of the people. But it is up to the people to decide what they want. The people ultimately have the power to change what they feel neccessary by electing new leaders or kicking them out.
do you think that the two party system more than the distribution of power makes politics more complicated?
DeleteSamantha you hit it right on the head. The founding fathers did not expect there to be a permanent party system,instead of people voting for the candidate most qualified and proven,they vote for their party member. This leads to serious problems, obviously this is a terrible way to run a country
DeleteI agree with what you say about the shift of power differs between each party and political leader. The shifting of power shouldn't become to drastic or there might be some unwanted consequences. The federal government should have more power than the states as to keep the states in line with the constitution.
DeleteJosh- thanks :D I really don't like the two party system at all; it seems quite unnecessary, plus the politicians are always in disagreement with a lot of their parties' views.
DeleteThe United States government isn't perfect, and a perfect balance amongst the branches is nearly impossible. The national government currently has more power over the state and local governments. But this doesn't mean that the national government is in complete control. The system of checks and balances allows the state and local governments to rally against the national government, and vice versa. Each state has their own issues and will find means to go about taking care of them, but, like in the case of SB 1070, some bills may not coincide with the Constitution and need to have parts be struck down. Those bills won't be struck down for no reason. This very intricate system keeps branches from having too much power and abusing it. I find this to be a solid way to go about governing the people as long as the people in charge are willing to take into account the needs of the United States citizens.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with all of your points. A perfect balance amongst the branches is impossible, but does not mean that the national government has all the power they want. The system of checks and balances is a good way for branches of the government with less power to voice their own opinion against the national government, as well as vice versa.
DeleteClearly the United States government is flawed, it is impossible to create a perfect government. It is also nearly impossible to create an equal balance within the branches of government. I believe that power is distributed in an appropriate way between national, state and local levels. The national government is given more power and is able to maintain justice throughout the country. This would not be possible if local and state levels were given the same amount of power that the national level has. The system of checks and balances is put in place prevents branches, including the national government, from obtaining too much power and being able to abuse it. In the case of SB 1070, parts of the bills did not adhere to the Constitution and were struck down for that reason. This system allows effective governing of our country.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you are saying Jessica, because if the national government wasn't able to preempt laws from the state and federal governments, when they came in direct conflict with the Constitution, The United States would not be adhering to it's Bill of Rights. For example, if the state and federal governments (and officers) were given more power with it came to the case of SB 1070, racial profiling could be a result, which is a direct violation of the constitution. Also, it is the national governments inherited power to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.
DeleteThe balance of power between the state and federal governments today is probably the most appropriate balance we will ever get. If the state governments became too powerful, then they would not be regulated and could come up with laws that might even go against the constitution. The federal government shouldn't be to strong either because then the states might not even have the right to create their own laws. Without the balance of power that we have today, our government would not be able to do its job properly. An example of how the government should act on laws passed by states, is the Supreme Court's ruling on SB1070. When a state passes a law, the federal government should review the law to make sure it stays within the guidelines of the constitution and make changes if necessary. The Supreme Court did this when the judges struck down 4 of the provisions that went against the constitution. This system of checks and balances provides the best solution to the division of power between the state and federal governments.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that todays government is fair. however i also believe that the federal government has the right to have more power and make laws for other states, as long as the power given to the federal government arn't abused. Do you think more universal laws would make the country more efficient and have less miscomunications or create more chaos?
DeleteStates do not share equal power with the national government because that balance would not be appropriate. It is only fair that the national government has power over the state and local branches. It is not saying that states do not have the option to create their own laws and regulations, but they must be approved by congress before being passed. This allows for the Constitution to remain powerful and effective while still giving states certain rights. If every state was free to do exactly as they wish, we surely wouldn’t be ONE nation, but many. For example, SB 1070 was proposed by Arizona as a possible fix to the immigration problem. However since the national government found that it conflicts with federal law, much of it was shot down. This system of checks and balances is what helps keep integrity within the nation.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the national government should have more power than state and local levels. The Arizona v. United States case is a good example of the national government taking control of state rights.
DeleteSince all of us here are enrolled in the AP Government class, I trust that it is safe to assume that everyone is familiar with the purpose for our nation's "checks and balances" system of governing. There has been much controversy concerning Arizona's SB 1070 law passing through the Supreme Court with several revisions. I feel that our government, in this case, was able to make a reasonable, and appropriate, ruling. The judges recognized our state's power to make laws regarding our state's issues, while at the same time making opposing decisions based off of the nation's Constitution. In the case of the health care ruling, however, I am not certain that the national government should have been able to make the decision it did. It is not for me to say whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will or will not succeed in it's intended purposes. In addition, I am making no accusations or statements regarding its purpose, effectiveness, or whether I support it or not. I am simply stating the facts how I see them. This law requires - in other words forces - us to buy health care. I have nothing against everyone having health care, in fact that is a great prospect. I do not believe, however, that our national government has the power to make people buy something. If the supreme court can rule that we must buy health care, would they not then be able to rule that we have to buy ANYTHING else? I feel that this power exercised by the national government is limiting the free market theme that our country was founded on. When the national government starts making choices like this for everyone, I feel that is when the decision should probably be left to the individual state governments. I also see that is the case in many of the medicinal marijuana, gay rights, and abortion propositions as well (whether I support them or not). Many decisions are made in Washington that severely oppose the wishes of a certain state's citizens. Overall, though, I feel that our national, state, and local governments have done a great job sharing powers thus far. I hope that it stays this way, because I get the feeling Washington is flirting with disaster if it decides to exercise more power than it should.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/23/why-obamacare-is-bad-for-americas-health/
I agree with your idea that although the federal government must reserve the most power of the three levels, certain topics (medicinal marijuana, gay rights, and abortion) should be left to the individual states to choose and vote on how they will deal with the issues, as they do not threaten our national unity. Topics that threaten our national unity such as war must be decided by the federal government in order to avoid major conflict within the country.
DeleteThank you! I know this is a raging topic in politics today, and I'm sure it always has been. Just like you said, we need to really categorize which issues should be handled by which government.
DeleteAlso, each state has different needs. Border states need laws that help them with illegal immigration. Other states have their own needs as well. I also agree that states should decide on the more sensitive issues like abortion and gay rights.
DeleteOur government doesn’t have equally divided powers between a local, state, and national level. The national level contains more power than the other two. The national level of government keeps the other levels in check. It has the authority to give powers away, like in the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius case where the national government divided its power in the health care field by giving states funding to assist those in need. The national government also takes away power when state or local governments use to much like when the national government took away some of Arizona’s immigration policies in the Arizona v. United States case.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is a good thing that the national level has the most power. The national government has the responsibility to watch over all levels and in order to complete this task effectively it needs the highest amount of power. Without this power state or local levels could create havoc by making new laws to contradict the national levels power.
I agree completely with your statements and I liked how you used the examples to say that the national government has the most power because it has the ability to distribute power.
DeleteWhy is the national government more important than national or state levels? Those are the places where changes need to start, not at the national level. Why are life-time Senators and Congressmen in D.C. making decisions for Arizona? State governments need to be the most powerful, as they have the most connections with its citizens, with more power than municipal governments.
DeleteJust saw your response Alex, like I have said, term limits would fix 90% of problems plain and simple.
DeleteI totally agree that the people in Washington need to have term limits. I personally think that house representatives should have longer terms. Since they only have 2 year terms they spend too much time trying to get re-elected, instead of focusing on our countries issues.
DeleteIt is necessary for the national government to hold an excess of power over states so that the country does, in fact, remain united. Without this element to our system of government, the nation would not be cohesive. An extremity of laws, whether or not they be constitutional, may preside in each state. This could produce an array of problems that may ultimately lead to the demise of the country. As states compete against one another, they may pass absurd, unconstitutional laws to appease their respective citizens- which may pose disastrous consequences to the confluence of the social life amongst the country and the national economy.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, it is also necessary for some powers and "checks" to reside at the state and local level. This allows each subsequent body to provide a more personalized style of government for its citizens. This is obviously vital to the country as it is impossible- considering the expanse of the national borders- for the federal government to cater to every American. In some cases, especially immigration, the balance of power between the state and national level needs to be reevaluated. In the ruling of Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court made it clear that, "States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance." Congress has made immigration one of theses exclusive fields. Furthermore, the problem of illegal immigration is an overarching issue in Arizona that the national government as a whole has failed to fix. What happens when the national government has become so impersonalized that it fails to confront it owns shortcomings or enforce its own laws? In certain instances, it is necessary for the states to intercede and enact their own measures when the well-being of their citizens is in jeopardy. I believe the federal government should not interfere in these cases.
I totally agree with the first part of your response, but I'm not really sure if I understand how illegal immigration could be considered more of a state problem than a national problem. Indeed, it has strong effects in Arizona, but that's something where we deal with other nations and the borders of the country, not just the borders of the state.
DeleteAustin, if every state has their own “personalized” government, then the country is not as united as once thought. Once they begin doing things their own way, tension will build, and we know how bad that can turn out. I believe that every state should have their say in national policies, but I do not see much good in every state acing on their own without restrictions.
DeleteI'm sorry, by "personalized" I mean for the citizens. Illegal immigration is likely more prevalent in border states and by personalized I mean that this an area that needs more attention as compared to a state say in the Midwest or in New England. Kyle, I did say that the national government needs supremacy for unity. However, each level is able to focus more directly on its body of citizens and govern accordingly, implementing laws they see fit if constitutional. I do not believe that they should act independently and with free reign.
DeleteI agree with you Austin because in the case of illegal immigration the idea that Arizona police can not look for and prosecute the immigrants that are breaking federal law because its a federal law seems to be inefficient and puts more emphasis on who catches the criminal than the criminal is caught.
DeleteThe UNITED States of America are such because they are bound together by the same principles. A consistency must be present in the laws and regulations of the states. Therefore, even though the distribution of power is far from equal between local, state and the federal governments, it’s appropriate and fair. Cities need to comply with state laws, and states with federal laws. If the distribution of powers were equal, there would be too many differences in the laws and principles throughout the country and the single country may as well be multiple countries. The Supreme Court was of appropriate opinion in both the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and Arizona v. United States cases. The federal government is able to exercise its abilities and protect existing principles. For example, 3 of the 4 provisions of S.B. 1070 were struck down but the state of Arizona still has the right to practice one of the provisions as it is constitutional. The checks and balances of the federal government ensures that it is not abusing it’s power.
ReplyDeleteYour description of the supreme court is completely clear, in that their main duty is to stick to the constitution on all rulings, as hi-lighted by AZ v. US and Business v. Sebelius, as is your stance on the power behind those rulings... It is indeed very necessary that an inequal distribution of power comes into play when concerning the differences between national and state governments.
DeleteI agree with all of your points. Especially how you pointed out that consistency must be maintained in laws and regulations to keep justice. We have our federal government to look over laws and regulations to check that consistency is maintained, and like you said make cities laws comply with state laws and states comply with federal laws.
DeleteI think that the current distribution of power between national, state, and local levels is pretty satisfactory compared to that of other nations. The national government has the most power, and why wouldn't it? Major things happen on a national level, like war, money, interstate commerce, international commerce, treaties, postal service, and upholding the Constitution. States and local governments have plenty of their own powers as well; they are essentially mini versions of how the national government works, and even share some of the powers the national government has. As it stands, the outline of our government looks really great. The problems we run into occur when constitutionality and the two political parties come into play. Depending on the Supreme Court justices, constitutionality is going to be viewed in vastly different ways, and I suppose this is where a lot of states run into trouble with their legislation. However, to keep any sort of balance at all, I can understand why the national government must have this power. A state belongs to a country, not the other way around; logically a state's legislation must correspond with "the law of the land."
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the ruling of Arizona vs. United States, where "sections making it a crime to be in Arizona without legal papers, making it a crime to apply for or get a job in the state, or allowing police to arrest individuals who had committed crimes that could lead to their deportation" were nullified, the ruling makes sense because those areas are under control of the federal government. Whatever national powers are in place must be truly upheld; otherwise, any laws can be passed by states. When states conflict with the federal government, the system doesn't work.
As far as ruling on the ACA goes, "the Court ruled that while the section 5000A penalty is treated as a tax for constitutional purposes, it is not a direct tax, and therefore is not required to be apportioned among the states according to population." As long as the decision of whether it is a tax or not was made, technically the decisions that follow seem to coincide with the levels of government already established.
I like the examples you used to describe why the government has the most power,and the fact that state governments acting alone cannot handle topics like war, international commerce, and treaties, or else the country would become divided due to the different views of the different states. You also made a good point about how problems arise from the different political parties that have different views on certain subjects which causes conflict. Constitutionality can also be a contreversial topic due to the fact that each party has their own slightly different interpretation of the constitution.
DeleteI agree with your points about national power and states ultimately yielding to the law of the land. However, in the second paragraph when you say that "those areas are under control of the federal government", I believe that states should be allowed to work together if not develop their own system of carrying out operations of "those areas" if, in fact, the federal government is underperforming in those areas. If both forces are trying to accomplish the same objective and are both acting constitutionally, where does a problem lie?
DeleteI believe that the power distribution among the federal, state, and local government levels is appropriate and fair, despite the obvious imbalances. The federal level of government should be entitled to the most power, in order to ensure that the common beliefs that the country was founded upon are upheld. If the states had more power than the federal governments, then they could enact their own ridiculous laws and regulations that would eventually result in the country being divided and the fifty states becoming their own countries. The federal government must overlook the laws passed by the states, so that they agree with the constitution and are fair. For the same reason, the state level must hold more power than the local level.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that the supreme court’s ruling Arizona v. United States in regards to immigration was an appropriate ruling due to the fact that immigration into the country is controlled by the federal government, not the individual states. Therefore, the states cannot enact laws that interfere with the powers of the federal government, which is fair. The court’s decision of the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius was somewhat stretching the federal government’s power, as the states were given no compromise at all of whether or not they would comply with the ACA.
i definately agree on the fact that the national government should have the most amount of power. Even though rizona's actions interfeared with the national government's laws. should the decision have been subject reasoning and observation to make a better comprimise? Should Laws like that be made more universal for the U.S. and less o dicrection of states?
DeleteI completely agree on the fact that the national government should be entitled to the most power. The national level always should have the most power only because it's the most important level. Big decisions are made and if all power was equal, decisions would be flawed. Also, I agree on where you mention if the states had more power than the national government, then there would be a lot more tension. Gay rights for example: I'm sure that if the government outlawed gay marriage, there would be a lot more tension among the states as opposed to letting individual states settle the issue among themselves.
DeleteIn the United States, federal, state, and national government do not have equal power, however the distribution of power that is secured through the system of Checks and Balances is how it should be. If State Law had just as much authority as the Federal Law did, decisions would ultimately be flawed. Congress intended for Federal to over rule State, for example, in the circumstances of the Arizona vs. US S.B. 1070, if Federal warrants were not passed, State officers would have more arrest authority involving the removal of illegal aliens. However, a State law can be "preempted when they conflict with a federal law" unlawful entry and unlawful reentry into the country are federal offenses, and therefore should be taken care of on a federal level. The distribution of power in our government is not balanced, as it wasn't intended to be, considering the national government has dominant power in order to ensure that all laws, State and Federal, keep in check with our Constitution. A federal regulation should not diminish the importance of a State policy due to the fact that all states have the right to individual restrictions and laws, yet in order for our United States government to be united, a National government should ultimately for see over all State and federal levels.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the national government is responsible for making more "powerful" decisions based off of the nation's interest as a whole. This is certainly a good thing, because different states have different interests; that is why we elect a president every 4 years. I personally believe though, that states should exercise their rights to make laws in accordance with their specific issues. In the case of S.B. 1070, I don't think many other states supported us in our decision making. It really became more of a moral dilemma across the country than anything else. What many didn't realize is that Arizona made that law only because the immigration problem was affecting US, not New York or Illinois. It would be easy for New York to call Arizona racist and hateful, but their citizens aren't paying billions of dollars in damage control. If the immigrants didn't cause so much of a financial burden on our state, I don't think the law would have even been made. If the question of Constitutionality comes into play (which it did in this case), I agree that the Supreme Court should have the final say in passing a law. Until that point is reached though, I believe that states should be allowed to govern themselves as they see fit as long as they stay aligned with the best interests of the nation.
DeleteI like how you pointed out that for the UNITED States to be a UNITED government we need a national government to over see state and local levels. The articles of confederation was not strong enough to united and govern our country. Therfore our branches of government was created with the national government at head to over see and maintain justice.
DeleteI completely agree on how you brought up the concept of checks and balances. The American system of checks and balances has worked well over the course of America's history. Even though some huge clashes have occurred when vetoes have been overridden or appointees have been rejected, these occasions are rare. The system was meant to keep the three branches in balance. Even though there have been times when one branch has risen preeminent, overall the three branches have achieved a workable balance with no one branch holding all the governmental power.
DeleteOur government is based on the idea of equality and freedom. However, a line must be drawn where the government must intervene to keep the United States whole and to prevent rioting or disorderly conduct. One idea that is most likely mentioned in the book is popular sovereignty. It basically states that if a state’s population favors a law that is seen as unpopular in the state or disliked then the country may change the law. for example, in the Civil war era some states wanted to be a slave state, however to keep the powers even the national government intervened with the state government which is why our country was based on so many compromises.
ReplyDeletePersonally I believe in a stronger national government because even though many people can disagree or protest against the decisions of the national government, there will be less miscommunications such as when the national government was focused on Arizona's immigration laws while Oklahoma had placed equally if not harsher laws. Also as whole the country will become more efficient if; laws are left to the national government because I would end the litter and millions of dollars spent on advertisement and childish remarks towards opposing members of polls.
Lastly, in the case of the Arizona immagration i believe the national government does have the right to change dicisions made by states. However issues like immagration should be equally across the U.S. to limi the ammount of time and effort it takes to decide on topics such as this.
I like how you brought in America's history to explain your viewpoint, but I'm interested in what you mean by more national power equaling more efficiency. If everything has to be passed on a national level and affects more people, wouldn't you say changes take longer and are more inefficient?
DeleteThe system in the U.S. is not evenly distributed amongst the branches of the government. The Constitution says "the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." which by definition gives it supremacy over any other government. The Supreme Court decision about Obama care is a good example of how federal trumps state power because a majority of states appealed to the court and one decision by a branch of the government upheld in defense of the minority. This is however necessary because the states all have different interests. Medical marijuana is a modern day paradox that shows how important it is for the federal government to add uniformity to the union. Now medical marijuana is legal in some states but not others which is against Article 4 of the Constitution which says "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States". The federal government is needed to decide if they are breaking the law or simply medicating.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/29/26-states-appeal-health-care-law-to-supreme-court/
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
I agree with what you said about the Supreme Court being more powerful that the states. We do need a a central government that has power over the states because if no one is their to give them guidelines then they are free to create any law they want. In continuation, if all the states had their own seperate laws then they might as well be all separate countries.
DeleteI believe that the United States government appropriately divides power between the local, state, and national levels. The national level always should have the most power only because it's the most important level. Big decisions are made and if all power was equal, decisions would be flawed. Simply put, if all the levels had the same amount of power, then it would lead to some pretty bad things. States and local governments have plenty of their own powers as well. They are essentially smaller versions of how the national government works, and even share some of the powers the national government has. I just don't think it would be right if the states and local governments had more power.
ReplyDeleteThink about it, if all levels of the government were with power, their would be a lot of tension between the states and the national government. I remember from APUSH that when the United States was newly established, we tried multiple ways of distributing and balancing power between each level. It turned out to be that the national government should have the most, but not too much. I honestly believe that it's perfectly fine the way it is currently.
Why is the national the most important level? It is the most out of touch with its citizens of all the levels of government. How would politicians in D.C. know anything about issues taking place in Anthem, or Phoenix, or Tucson, all the way across the country.
DeleteTotally agree, Ali. We need the national government to have more overall power than the state and local governments do. Though some people argue with the balance of power, they do not seem to realize what consequences we would be dealing with if the federal government did not have powers to overturn unconstitutional laws that states try to pass. Additionally, state and local governments do have a lot of power, respectively to the national government. The federal government just needs the power to check so our country will stay united!
DeleteAnd Alex, that's why we have Senators and Representatives who bring state and local issues to D.C.
Ali I respect your opinion, however the federal government gained most of its power when it "improved" the Constitution without Jefferson and Madison(whom wrote the original) even in the same state. Both of whom supported vehemently. The ONLY things that should be controlled by the federal government are our borders(which they don't) and the military.
DeleteObviously that's not going to change, but we can change how it operates. Federal officials, Senators and members of Congress NEED term limits. I absolutely hate career politician's who just focus on the next election and staying in DC and by installing term limits you will actually get people who will do the right thing. Not just the right thing to get reelected.
Carlyn,
DeleteWhat about a state overturning a unconstitutional law from the federal government? But, then again it doesn't really matter, cause the S.C. decides constitutionality of laws anyways.
Josh,
DeleteAlthough I do strongly agree that country borders and military control should undoubtedly be under our federal government, leaving everything else up to state governance will cause more harm than good in this country. If you think back to the beginnings of the Civil War, when states' rights was a topic of controversy within the nation, the South strongly advocated greater power within their states to tax how they pleased and continue their slave trade based economy while the North sought to expand growing infrastructure with tax raises. This split in ideals is what ultimately led to the war. Giving states every power but control of borders and the nations military will cause chaos amongst a divided nation.
Ali, I understand the points you are making, but I suppose I am also a bit confused. What types of "bad" things would happen if the states were given more rights? I realize that the national government should be responsible for making "big" decisions, like declarations of war and the use of national funds and such. However, aren't there certain "big" decisions that would be more effectively made by state and local governments? Gay rights for example (I am just using a trending topic simply for example; I am not commenting whether I am opposed to it or I support it in any way). I'm sure that if the government outlawed gay marriage, there would be FAR more tension among the states as opposed to letting individual states settle the issue among themselves. If California were to expand gay marriage, and Texas were to keep marriage restricted, both states would have there way as based off of the citizen's preferences in the specific state.
DeleteJoey, I really do appreciate how you put things in perspective. I never thought of it that way, honestly. You make an excellent point with your example of gay marriage.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow can any one person define "equally"? Who knows perfectly what the balance is? The Articles of Confederation where too weak of a federal government, unable to unite the states. Now, there is some claim that the states need more rights, because the federal government is too powerful telling the States what laws they can and can't pass, such as in U.S. vs. Arizona. In order to balance a scale, you need to test the sides with different weights, until the scales stop in the middle after each side has had its turn weighing more than the other.
ReplyDeleteExactly. This is why no mode of government can ever be perfect. No two people will have the exact same goals and beliefs. Parties have evolved, adapted, and disappeared due to widespread changes in mentality that will always occur as long as we as human beings exist. What might seem "equal" in the eyes of one might seem unjust in another.
Delete