In the United States, federalism is a term used to indicate the relationship between the state government and the United States federal governments. After the founding of America, there was a shift of power from the states towards the national government. Today federalism has gone through other phases such as the new federalism that is of concern to this paper.
The new federalism movement appeared in America in the late 20th Century and early 21st Century. This term is a political philosophy that means devolution of power. This philosophy was initiated by President Ronald Reagan and was characterized by the reverting of power back to the states. The states had lost this autonomy due to President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. The main aim …show more content…
It is a system whereby power is shared, and functions are separated. The judiciary is one of the arms that enhance the separation of powers. In the constitution of the United States of America, there is the ‘full faith and credit clause,’ that imposes a responsibility on the states to honor the judicial decisions between the different states.
The Supreme Court acts as a referee between the state and federal governments through judicial review. The disputes between the federal government and congress are also handled by the Supreme Court through the interpretation of the constitution and other legal instruments.
The judiciary is supposed to be an independent body with the ability to make decisions without external influence. But as stated by Banks and Blakeman, the federal government can still determine what happens in the states (Banks & Blakeman 2). The judiciary may rule that a particular practice is an infringement of rights but the problem comes in when the authorities that caused the infringement are supposed to correct the wrong (Williams …show more content…
United States (1997), the Supreme Court used its discretion to overturn the effect of Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. This Act required that the state and law enforcement agencies to conduct checks on prospective gun holders. In this case, the Supreme Court sought to show that the congress did not require approval by the state to make any policies. The congress, however, had a responsibility to assist in the implementation of the federal laws.
In several other cases, the court has been used to limit the power of the congress. For example, in Gonzales v. Reich (2005), the court ruled that under the commerce clause, the federal government may outlaw the use of marijuana for medical purposes, this notwithstanding that the drug did not go outside the state.
The work of the Supreme Court can be seen especially in the interpretation of the commerce clause. This clause grants the congress power to regulate commerce among the states and foreign nations. It has been used to justify various laws that the congress imposes dealing with the economic activities. The Supreme Court comes in and expands the power of the federal government under this clause to quell the disputes.
The legislature under the new
The new federalism movement appeared in America in the late 20th Century and early 21st Century. This term is a political philosophy that means devolution of power. This philosophy was initiated by President Ronald Reagan and was characterized by the reverting of power back to the states. The states had lost this autonomy due to President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. The main aim …show more content…
It is a system whereby power is shared, and functions are separated. The judiciary is one of the arms that enhance the separation of powers. In the constitution of the United States of America, there is the ‘full faith and credit clause,’ that imposes a responsibility on the states to honor the judicial decisions between the different states.
The Supreme Court acts as a referee between the state and federal governments through judicial review. The disputes between the federal government and congress are also handled by the Supreme Court through the interpretation of the constitution and other legal instruments.
The judiciary is supposed to be an independent body with the ability to make decisions without external influence. But as stated by Banks and Blakeman, the federal government can still determine what happens in the states (Banks & Blakeman 2). The judiciary may rule that a particular practice is an infringement of rights but the problem comes in when the authorities that caused the infringement are supposed to correct the wrong (Williams …show more content…
United States (1997), the Supreme Court used its discretion to overturn the effect of Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. This Act required that the state and law enforcement agencies to conduct checks on prospective gun holders. In this case, the Supreme Court sought to show that the congress did not require approval by the state to make any policies. The congress, however, had a responsibility to assist in the implementation of the federal laws.
In several other cases, the court has been used to limit the power of the congress. For example, in Gonzales v. Reich (2005), the court ruled that under the commerce clause, the federal government may outlaw the use of marijuana for medical purposes, this notwithstanding that the drug did not go outside the state.
The work of the Supreme Court can be seen especially in the interpretation of the commerce clause. This clause grants the congress power to regulate commerce among the states and foreign nations. It has been used to justify various laws that the congress imposes dealing with the economic activities. The Supreme Court comes in and expands the power of the federal government under this clause to quell the disputes.
The legislature under the new