FEDERALISM

FEDERALISM: The PROS and the CONS in relation to THE NATION and THE STATE.

This MISGUIDED belief of the national government's power being able to SUPERSEDE and OVERRIDE the regional governments of the states is ABSOLUTELY HYPOCRITICAL. I, Anton I. Frederalicks, understand the need for co-operation when the RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL are at stake: THAT is when the national government should step in and RIGHT THE WRONGS. HOWEVER MY FRIENDS, if we were to give the national government this power, THINK OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN. We could potentially put ourselves in the same situation that we JUST ESCAPED FROM that involved THE BRITISH. The government would have the power to OVERRIDE the STATE GOVERNMENT by using the ELASTIC CLAUSE, otherwise known as the NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE.

The leader of our state DELAWARE made progress in the beginnings of our Great Nation by proposing a plan to congress that LIMITED the INFLUENCE that the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT had over the INDEPENDENT STATES. Dickinson believed for some time that the BEST WAY to ENSURE STATE's RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES was to allow for a STATE MILITARY.

HOWEVER, in later years, Dickinson moved away from INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM and aimed for a STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.

Because the Constitution seperates the government into three distinct branches, the rights of the people remain intact. Each branch is equal and applies to everybody. Therefore, no branch is given the opportunity to rise above another.
Once the national government owns power over individuals, it does not need to worry about state schedules and may preserve the overall peace.
By creating a national army, the states may be kept in check and ensure that one powerful state does not take control when at a disagreement with another.

I have continued the debate over powers in another topic.

So I propose a new topic: Isn't it too soon for a more centralized national government? The articles may be weak but this is understandable for a very fresh, new government. I believe more time should be taken to let the system adjust itself. Furthermore, not all of the committee was present at the meeting as stated in Federal Farmer I. There is a good chance that this new constitution is rather cushy to the aristocrats in the nation as well, which limits the representation of the poorer folk.

Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. 9/13 states had to agree with any new laws and 13/13 states had to support any amendments. Therefore, most of the lawmaking was done in the states. Congress could not tax and often ran short of funds. They were not allowed to regulate trade which created tension between states. The Congress and states both acquired debts during the war and paying it back became an issue. The weak Articles of Confederation did not accomplish anything and failed. The only positive thing is that it led the way for us to take the next step and create the Constitution we have today.

The Articles of Confederation gave the people the right to destroy the existing government and create a new one.
Listing rights can be dangerous. What would stop people from violating rights even though they are not listed ones? Because we can't list all the rights, I propose we do not list any at all.

Federalism is a union of states under a central government distinct from the individual government of the the serperate states.