Since the federalists developed the constitution at the constitutional convention in 1787, opponents have challenged the development of state v. national government. At the inception of this document, critics claimed that it gave the federal government too much power over the states, and that the country would revert back to a monarchy over time. They claimed that only evil could result from this, and expected a decline in political freedom for the masses. This claim, however, has been proved wrong on multiple occasions. From the creation of the document, the federalists knew that there was potential for corruption, and attempted to curb the power of each part of the federal government. Additionally, they retained the civil liberties of the
…show more content…
After the civil war, African americans were freed, but not given similar rights to the white man. The 14th amendment, and expansion to the Bill or Rights, prevented unfair treatment against minorities. This government’s power over the southern states, who wanted to keep African Americans powerless, allowed for handing out rights where there were none before. However, movement is not always in the right direction. Plessy v. Ferguson allowed separate but equal facilities for colored people, and while at the time this provided for improved facilities, this quickly became a source of hate and isolation. Many court cases subsequently denied a change to the system of separate but equal. Other cases denied rights to other minorities, such as Korematsu v. United States, which ruled that the federal government could imprison a race during a time of war. At times like these, some states used federalism to enforce their own laws, such as most northern states who prohibited segregation in schools. This shows an instance where the states having power over a different sphere than the federal government has aided history. In 1954, however, the government changed its position on this controversial topic in Brown v. Board of Education. This ruled that separate but equal schooling is inherently flawed against the 14th amendment (“Brown v.”). This position of the federal government was …show more content…
The government has the capacity to change. Federalism can easily devolve into a constricting government in the absence of change with the times. The issue of slavery was not nearly as prevalent at the conception of the Constitution (though it was still an issue). However, the Constitution is a living document that changes to what the people need, allowing for the levels of government to carry out laws that will better the people. If the document could not change, then indeed the country would have been set on a path towards corruption. As public opinion rallies around a cause, such as civil rights, the government should be able to respond in a way that suits the people. Without this, the government is not actually working in the best interest of the people and becomes less relevant, less
After the civil war, African americans were freed, but not given similar rights to the white man. The 14th amendment, and expansion to the Bill or Rights, prevented unfair treatment against minorities. This government’s power over the southern states, who wanted to keep African Americans powerless, allowed for handing out rights where there were none before. However, movement is not always in the right direction. Plessy v. Ferguson allowed separate but equal facilities for colored people, and while at the time this provided for improved facilities, this quickly became a source of hate and isolation. Many court cases subsequently denied a change to the system of separate but equal. Other cases denied rights to other minorities, such as Korematsu v. United States, which ruled that the federal government could imprison a race during a time of war. At times like these, some states used federalism to enforce their own laws, such as most northern states who prohibited segregation in schools. This shows an instance where the states having power over a different sphere than the federal government has aided history. In 1954, however, the government changed its position on this controversial topic in Brown v. Board of Education. This ruled that separate but equal schooling is inherently flawed against the 14th amendment (“Brown v.”). This position of the federal government was …show more content…
The government has the capacity to change. Federalism can easily devolve into a constricting government in the absence of change with the times. The issue of slavery was not nearly as prevalent at the conception of the Constitution (though it was still an issue). However, the Constitution is a living document that changes to what the people need, allowing for the levels of government to carry out laws that will better the people. If the document could not change, then indeed the country would have been set on a path towards corruption. As public opinion rallies around a cause, such as civil rights, the government should be able to respond in a way that suits the people. Without this, the government is not actually working in the best interest of the people and becomes less relevant, less