Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States once said “A house divided against itself cannot stand (1).” This holds true as shown by the history of the United States. Much like a house, the US cannot hope to function if its states are asunder. As a response to this problem, the Founding Fathers created the Articles of Confederation. The Articles marked a leap forward to a stable government. Giving more power to the state governments was done in order to preserve the notion of individual liberty instead of a having a potential dictator govern. This idea was influenced by the ideas behind the American Revolution. The purpose of the revolution was to break away from what the colonists deemed as a tyrannical figure. However this document
…show more content…
However, during the Great Depression in the 30’s, people needed the government’s help to combat the rising unemployment and the poor economy. The state governments could not solve the problem thus had to turn to the central government for help. Citizens are usually willing to let the national government take the lead when they are going to tough times which “emphasized the partnership of different levels of government in providing effective public services for the nation (5).” This was called Co-operative Federalism because people would go along with the national government’s plans to pull the nation out of the Depression. After the Great Depression ended, the power of the state and national government had no clear distinction. It was no longer a “layer cake of three distinct and separate planes, national, state and local, but rather a marble cake, an inseparable mixture of differently colored ingredients (5).” With Lyndon B. Johnson, Coercive Federalism took the stage. It was essentially “clearly a much more active form of Coercive Federalism (5).” The national government could coerce state governments to adopt policies by issuing categorical grants in which the money given to the states would be used to pay for new policies issued. New Federalism under Richard Nixon decreased categorical grants but increased block grants. With block grants, state governments had more freedom when …show more content…
Many states have different needs due to the regional differences and Federalism helps cater to those demands. For example, more rural states have looser gun control laws due to a lesser population which leads to a smaller police force. Sprawling urban cities have stricter gun control laws because guns play a lesser role in a city dweller’s life and the potential dangers of using a gun for less honest means. I commend this part of Federalism since it allows individual liberty. However, it would be better if there were more distinct differences between the powers of the national and federal government. Marble cake Federalism induces confusion between the state and national government. I would prefer more of a layer cake Federalism because the distinction is much clearer. However, the issue of powers will be another factor. Most citizens would want the state to have autonomy but in reality they can’t have more power than the central government. To combat this problem, states have some powers that the national government does not have and vice versa. This has been the case but in this society, it is hard to tell what the state can or cannot do especially in controversial issues. The controversial issue of the legalization of marijuana exists because of the blurred boundaries of power. Some states made marijuana legal while the federal government has proclaimed it to be illegal.
However, during the Great Depression in the 30’s, people needed the government’s help to combat the rising unemployment and the poor economy. The state governments could not solve the problem thus had to turn to the central government for help. Citizens are usually willing to let the national government take the lead when they are going to tough times which “emphasized the partnership of different levels of government in providing effective public services for the nation (5).” This was called Co-operative Federalism because people would go along with the national government’s plans to pull the nation out of the Depression. After the Great Depression ended, the power of the state and national government had no clear distinction. It was no longer a “layer cake of three distinct and separate planes, national, state and local, but rather a marble cake, an inseparable mixture of differently colored ingredients (5).” With Lyndon B. Johnson, Coercive Federalism took the stage. It was essentially “clearly a much more active form of Coercive Federalism (5).” The national government could coerce state governments to adopt policies by issuing categorical grants in which the money given to the states would be used to pay for new policies issued. New Federalism under Richard Nixon decreased categorical grants but increased block grants. With block grants, state governments had more freedom when …show more content…
Many states have different needs due to the regional differences and Federalism helps cater to those demands. For example, more rural states have looser gun control laws due to a lesser population which leads to a smaller police force. Sprawling urban cities have stricter gun control laws because guns play a lesser role in a city dweller’s life and the potential dangers of using a gun for less honest means. I commend this part of Federalism since it allows individual liberty. However, it would be better if there were more distinct differences between the powers of the national and federal government. Marble cake Federalism induces confusion between the state and national government. I would prefer more of a layer cake Federalism because the distinction is much clearer. However, the issue of powers will be another factor. Most citizens would want the state to have autonomy but in reality they can’t have more power than the central government. To combat this problem, states have some powers that the national government does not have and vice versa. This has been the case but in this society, it is hard to tell what the state can or cannot do especially in controversial issues. The controversial issue of the legalization of marijuana exists because of the blurred boundaries of power. Some states made marijuana legal while the federal government has proclaimed it to be illegal.