Evolution of Federalism

Written by: Aziza Alam and Jon Qian

Introduction

Federalism

In 1787, the federal system in the United States began with the creation of the
Constitution. The federal system established a system of government in which both
national and state governments derive all authority from the people. Since the institution
of federalism, the importance of this system of government has never lessened. However,
the relationship between the national government and state governments is not rigid,
federalism has changed greatly over the years and continues to evolve and grow as new
events and issues come to affect the country. The United States has experienced multiple
forms of federalism that seemed best fit for the country at the time of their formation. It is
important to mention that a major factor that affects the development and change of
federalism are the rulings of the United States Supreme Court. This is because, although
the Constitution established a federal system of government, the method of dispersing
power between the states and national government is unclear in the document. For this
reason, the Supreme Court has become prominent in defining the nature of the federal
system.

Marshall and the Supreme Court

During the period when Chief Justice John Marshall headed the Supreme Court in the
early 1800s, many important decisions were made regarding the federal-state
relationship. These rulings set forth the role the Supreme Court felt necessary to take to
help define the balance of power in the nation. Rulings that especially outlined this cause
include the cases of McCulloch v. Maryland, Gibbons v. Ogden and Barron v. Baltimore.
In McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court upheld the right of national supremacy
where the federal laws override state laws. The Gibbons v. Ogden case resulted in the
right of Congress to control commerce and overpower state intercourse laws. Lastly, the
Barron v. Baltimore case ruled that the Bill of Rights could not restrict the powers of
state governments.

Dual Federalism

The Rise of Dual Federalism

Marshalls Court set the precedent of the Supreme Courts role in making federalism
clear in the United States. His successor, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney would follow this
precedent in helping to illuminate what is known as Dual Federalism. During the
existence of Taneys court, a struggle began between state and nationalist views as pro-
business influence in the voting arena began to decline with more lower-class citizen
voters. Dual federalism follows the idea that each level of government has defined
powers, where the national government should not exceed those powers. Layer cake is
used as a metaphor to represent the separation of these powers. The Tenth Amendment
is a crucial part of Dual Federalism; it states that all powers not constitutionally given to
the federal government should be reserved to the states -- therefore, national power is
limited.

Dual Federalism in Action

Taneys Court stepped in to arbitrate these struggles with different issues presented to the
Court. The Court emphasized states rights and the power of the states in his decisions
involving Congress commerce clause powers. The nature of Dual federalism also
experienced enlightenment after Taney determined the Dred Scott Decision which
enhanced state power and limited national power by the Courts decision that the U.S.
Congress did not have the authority to ban slavery in territories. The idea of nullification
also helped to evolve the nature of Dual Federalism because it expanded the right of
states to declare a law void.

The Fall of Dual Federalism

Although Dual Federalism did not come to an end until the 1930s, changes in the 1880s
were due to rising national tensions. Specifically, the Civil War played a great role in
altering the fabrics of federalism, as well as the amendments that were soon to follow,
including the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments.
In the aftermath of the Civil War as the country began to reunite and restore itself, the
national and state governments began working together on reconstruction projects. The
authority of the national government was expanded during this time; the government
needed to take on more responsibility to control the development of the country after the
Civil War had ended. The increased power of the national government contrasted with
state-favored Dual Federalism ideals. It also demanded for a quicker and more
cooperative method to facilitate the troubles and coerce the chaotic nation.

A series of economic events in the early 1900s also hastened the expiry of Dual
Federalism. This included the numerous bank failures in the 1920s, price declines in
agriculture, decline of the construction industry, a high of consumer good inventories,
and the stock market crash of 1926. Although Presidents Coolidge and Hoover did not do
much to help the country after this period of economic crisis, the New Deal programs
enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to help bring the United States out of the
Great Depression. As a result of New Deal programs that both enhanced national
authority and required the national and state governments to work together, a new form
of federalism began to take hold on the country.


Cooperative Federalism

The Rise of Cooperative Federalism

The decisions in Taneys court as well as events in the mid-late 1800s set the stage for a
new type of federalism to take form, Cooperative Federalism. Marble cake is used as a
metaphor to represent the intertwined powers this type of federalism entails. The federal
government and state governments would work together to provide solutions and services
to the country. In reality, this type of federalism just allowed the federal government to
intervene with state decisions; the federal government essentially acted as the point man
and instructed the state governments. Nevertheless, this idea allowed for a more
efficacious method to solve cultured problems as well as increase intergovernmental
relations.


Cooperative Federalism in Action

Cooperative Federalism began with the New Deal and was greatly affected in the 1960s
by President Lyndon B. Johnsons Great Society program which was an attempt to
combat poverty and discrimination. Money and grants played was a key factor in
establishing the relationship between the federal and local governments. During the New
Deal, categorical grants were given to states to assist them in modifying societal
conditions. For example, in order to provide relief and employment for the poor, the
coordination of relief programs such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Civilian
Conservation Corps and other Alphabet Agencies. These grant programs were a
cooperative effort between national and state governments. However, during the Great
Society in 1964, funds were still given to states to help fix ills of society that the Great
Society attempted to cure, but grants served the interests of the national government
rather than state interests. Therefore, these grants affected the previously restored balance
of power between the national and state governments. During this era, a sublevel of
Cooperative Federalism emerged known as Creative Federalism.

Creative Federalism leaned in favor towards the federal government in that it created a
dependency between the state government and the federal government. The states began
to increasingly rely on the financial relief and categorical grants provided by the national
government, which the federal government took advantage of. The Picket Fence was a
metaphor used to describe this type of federalism in that the federal government was able
to directly control specific social problems such as housing and transportation. The states
also must use financial grants by the federal government on projects designed by the
federal government, thus giving them a much greater amount of power. Ultimately,
Creative Federalism weakened the power of the states and created a direct link between
federal and state governments.

The Fall of Cooperative Federalism

With the expanding role of national government during the New Deal and Great Society
period, the States became weary of the power the national government had accumulated.
Therefore, it was a natural instinct to limit the national governments authority and
restore power to the states. After the many shifts in responsibility between national and
state levels of government during the New Deal and Great Society programs, Ronald
Reagan decided in 1980 when he was elected president that he wanted to restore power to
the states with what he called New Federalism.

New Federalism

The Rise of New Federalism

New Federalism is characterized by its commitment to returning powers to the state
governments. This type of federalism was proposed by former President Ronald Reagan,
a republican who believed federal grants were a tactic used for imposing national
government interests on the states. He believed that a weaker federal government will
allow for a better suited and more efficient government within the states. Especially
notable was his desire to trade social and economic privileges previously in the hands of
the federal government to state and local governments. Overall, he reminded America
that because the states created the federal government, it should work for the states, not
overpower the states.

New Federalism is also known as Competitive Federalism due to the power struggle
between governments and the competition between state governments for workers and
jobs.

New Federalism in Action

New Federalism caused a dramatic decline in federal aid to be given to local and state
governments. However, many states liked the idea of New Federalism because new block
grants were given to states with less spending restrictions and states were given more of
a choice in deciding how to spend these grants. Unfunded mandates, federal laws that
controlled state and local programs without funding it, forced proponents of New
Federalism to successfully pass the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; it
disallowed Congress from passing federal programs or services without a fair discussion
on how they were to be funded.

In another attempt at limiting the powers of the national government, the Devolution
Revolution materialized in 1994. The Devolution Revolution is the name of a movement
led by former House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich and by republicans who desired to
scale back the federal government through support for a campaign document called the
Contract with America.
Furthermore, as the president, Ronald Reagan wanted to cease national government
expansion through the Supreme Court and appointed justices in the 1980s that would be
dedicated to returning power to the states.


The Fall of New Federalism

Recently, the government has been claiming more authority for redistributive policies.
This includes the No Child Left Behind Act passed in 2001 and the Patient Protection and
Affordable Health Care Act passed in 2010. Many states are upset because adjudication
concerning education and health care has usually been left to them.

Progressive Federalism

The Rise of Progressive Federalism

Even though the federal government has intervened with policies that were supposed to
be reserved by the states and local governments, the Obama administration still promotes
Progressive Federalism. Progressive Federalism allows the national government to
provide state and local officials freedom in solving national problems.

Progressive Federalism In Action

Because Progressive Federalism gives leeway to state officials in acting on issues
normally designated to the national government, the Obama administration allowed states
to make decisions concerning environmental and consumer protection issues. One
example of this in action is when a few states, including California, applied limits on
greenhouse gas emissions that were stricter than those imposed by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Progressive Federalism allows states to become when Justice
Louis Brandeis calls laboratories of democracy, allowing states to test policies that may
later be used by the federal government.

The Evolution of Federalism: Summary

To summarize, federalism is a constantly adapting system of government. Events in
history have forced change in the distribution of power between all levels of government
depending on what was necessary and what the people of the nation desired at a time.
The country has experienced many types of federalism for a simple reason, events cause
change and federalism works to accommodate itself to change. In this way, the country
may remain in a stable condition. The rulings of the Supreme Court have greatly helped
to define the distribution of power in case decisions and make clear to the nation the
current state of federalism. This is necessary, for federalism may never cease to alter the
distribution of power between national and state governments and the relationships
between the two.





The Evolution of Federalism: The diagram above illustrates the different types of
federalism in relation to events that have occurred in the nations history. How has the
distribution of power between the national and state governments changed over time?


Word Box:
Federalism
The idea that a system of government in which both national and state
governments derive all authority from the people.
Dual
Federalism
A type of federalism where each level of government has defined
powers, where the national government should not exceed those powers.
Tenth
Amendment
An Amendment in the Constitution that states that all powers not
constitutionally given to the federal government should be reserved to
the states. It is a crucial part of the creation of Dual Federalism.
Dred Scott
Decision
A ruling by Supreme Court Justice Taney that enhanced state power and
limited national power by the Courts decision that the U.S. Congress
did not have the authority to ban slavery in territories.
New Deal
Programs by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to try and bring the United
States out of the Great Depression.
The Great
Depression
An economic crash in the United States beginning from the Stock
Market Crash in 1929 and continued throughout the 1930s.
Cooperative
Federalism
A type of federalism where the federal government and state
governments would work together to provide solutions and services to
the country.
Great Society
Programs enacted by Lyndon B. Johnson to combat poverty and
discrimination.
Categorical
Grants
Grants by the federal government to the states. They could only be spent
on projects created by the federal government.
Creative
Federalism
A type of sub-federalism of Cooperative Federalism where the states
rely heavily on relief by the federal government.
New
Federalism
A type of federalism where certain federal powers have been transferred
to state and local governments. This was created by President Ronald
Reagan.
Competitive
Federalism
Also known as New Federalism, this type of federalism stresses the
competition between state governments.
Block Grants
Grants from the federal government to state and local governments
without directions on how they are used.
Unfunded
Mandates
Federal laws that controlled state and local programs without f
unding it
Devolution
Revolution
A movement led by former House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich and by
republicans who desired to scale back the federal government through
support for a campaign document called the Contract with America.
Progressive
Federalism
A type of federalism that allows the national government to provide
state and local officials freedom in solving national problems.

Types of Federalism
Writers: Julia Levine and Trevi Yavorek
Editor: Taylor Bond
Types of Federalism:
What is Federalism?

Federalism has impacted and shaped American government from its very
beginnings. Over the course of American history, federalism has constantly shifted
and changed forms, never allowing the different branches of government to retain
the same powers or rights, outside of what the Constitution guarantees. Many
different types of federalism exist, in both the world and in past and present
American government. Federalism is defined as a form of government in which a
grouping of states or different groups are under the ruling of one, central power. In
a federal form of government, both the national and state governments receive
their power from the people. The early Federalists in America in the era preceding
the independence of the colonies from Britain favored a strong national
government, and would support the powers allocated to the central government in
the Constitution. These federalists approved of a powerful central government,
particularly with a bicameral legislature, and supported the manner in which
federalism kept the direct power to rule out of the common mans hands, who they
did not see fit to govern the nation. As time has passed, the views of federalism
and federalists have changed, along with the type of federalism present in the
United States.

http://mrkash.com/activities/images/federalism.jpg

How does this diagram represent federalism?This diagram displays the powers given to both the
states and the nation government along with the shared power.

Dual Federalism

Dual Federalism was the belief of having separate but equally powerful branches
and levels of government, in which the state and national levels would both have a
lot of power to balance each other out. Some ways in which this balance was
achieved was by what is known as the concurrent powers. In these powers, the
powers are shared between the state and federal government. However, as
federalism and the nation evolved over time,

Where does the power of the government under Dual Federalism come from? The power
comes from both the federal and state government, which have certain, set powers. The
tension comes from the few places where the division of power is not as clear.
these concurrent powers blurred and the distinction between them became less
clear. This type of federalism is known as "layer cake federalism."

Cooperative Federalism

Cooperative Federalism was the belief of all the levels of government working
together cooperatively to achieve and solve common problems. This type of
federalism was most popular in the 1930s, following the Great Depression, and
lasted up until the 1970s. In this time period, miscommunication or power
struggles between state and national government could not be afforded during the
nations time of need. The nation needed the government to take control of the
situation and fix the present problems, such as the economy. Government funded
programs were implemented nationwide to attempt to fix the nation, such as the
WPA and REA. As the central government needed a unified plan of action for all
of America, certain boundaries that had typically been reserved for the states in the
past had to be crossed. Because of this, the distinction between federal and state
powers became less defined, resulting in what is known as marble cake
federalism.


http://apgovt.wikispaces.com/file/view/Federalism.jpg/30992839/Federalism.jpg
How does cake symbolize federalism? The two different cakes show two different types
of federalism. The marble (swirly) cake signifies cooperative federalism, where the
powers are not divided, but are shared by all levels of government. The layer cake
represents duel federalism. The different layers symbolize the distinct, different powers
the states' government and the national government have.

Creative Federalism

Creative Federalism was the type of federalism that shifted more power towards
the national government by bypassing state governments and allowing the federal
government to have direct control over statewide programs. This form of
federalism is also know as "picket-fence federalism", and was most prevalent
during the terms of Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society. The national
government began to interfere more in welfare programs in an effort to make a
stride towards a better nation, and alleviate some of the problems the nation was
faced with at the time. In this era, the state government was generally overlooked
as the national government decreed what was to be done in the states, directly
affecting the local governments and the citizens of the state. The power of the
states weakened during this type of federalism. Grants were used as a way to
coerce the state governments into complying with the national government's
wishes.

New Federalism

New Federalism evolved with the election of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. In this
progression of federalism, more power was returned to the state in an effort to
even out the balance of strength between the national and state governments. One
way this shift in balance was achieved was block grants. Block grants were
essentially grants to the state governments with little description or restrictions on
how to handle the money. In this way, the national government was in essence
giving states funds for basically whatever they wanted.

Along with New Federalism was the Devolution Revolution, which was another
drive to give more power back towards the state government. The Devolution
Revolution had a significant stride in the reformation of unfunded mandates.
Unfunded mandates were issues from the national government to the state
governments to comply with a certain order without offering funds to aid the states
in achieving the national governments requirement. By preventing Congress from
passing potentially costly federal programs and no allocating the state
governments funds to carry out Congresss wishes, more power was returned to
the states.

Federalism Under President Bush

Bush Federalism, although not an actual form of federalism, showcased important
events and changes in American history and drastically changed the type of
federalism in our nations government. The federalism under George W. Bushs
terms gave an extreme amount of power to the national government, as unity and
control was needed during the times of need the nation in this era. Catastrophes
such as 9/11 and the war on terrorism called for a stronger, more powerful central
government to deal with the nations issues. Additionally, acts such as No Child
Left Behind were viewed as an extreme version of preemption, or when the
national government overrides state and local government, giving more power to
the national government.


Judicial Federalism

Judicial Federalism is the ability of the Supreme Court and judicial review to
influence the type of federalism during a certain era, mainly because of their
ability to rule on whether something is constitutional or not. This ability invested
in the Supreme Court allows the court to decide where the power of government
goes; either to the stat

What is being shown in this picture? This picture shows the Supreme Court's influence on
the nation. The picture shows all the checks and balances equal, and all drawing their
power from the U.S. Constitution, which the Court has the authority to rule on whether
laws are constitutional or not.
e or to the central government. The members of the Supreme Court can allocate
where the power goes, based on their views of the Constitution and how they
chose to rule on a matter.

Fiscal Federalism

Fiscal Federalism is the usage of funds from the federal government to the states
in order to support a national program. A prime example of fiscal federalism are
categorical grants, in which the national government gives states money with
requirements attached. Fiscal federalism, and how it is applied, like judicial
federalism, can have a great impact on the type of federalism present during that
time. The manner in which the money is distributed can shape the federalism in
that era. As previously mentioned, unfunded mandates and block grants are other
ways in which fiscal federalism can be represented.

Progressive Federalism
Progressive Federalism is a recent form of federalism employed by the Obama
administration which allows the states to have a greater control over issues
normally reserved for the national government. In various instances, states have
been able to enforce more regulations on government decrees than necessary. This
type of federalism is used in different situations, such as California imposing
stricter regulations on the emissions of greenhouse gases in vehicles. This allows
the states to still comply with government orders, but add their own additions as
well. Allowing states to experiment with different variations on the same
government mandate can inform the national government on which type of
changes are most effective, and can allow the national government to tailor their
own laws to make them, in turn, more effective based off of what the different
states discovered.

Other Types of Federalism

Many types of federalism can exist. Federalism changes every generation, each
new type shaping the nation during that time. The types of federalism mentioned
above are only the tip of the iceberg, and the most famous kinds. A different type
of federalism can be created for practically any shift in the way the power of the
nation is redistributed. While the most well-known are described above, other
kinds of federalism do exist, such as
Vertical Federalism-the view of the central government having the supreme
power over the land
Horizontal Federalism-the view of the interactions and power being shared
between the states in America
Contemporary Federalism-the type of federalism occurring in modern
times, accommodating the shifting relationships between nation and state,
growth of the fiscal nature of federalism, and debating ideas on the limit of
the national government's power

VOCABULARY

Federalism- a form of government where a group of states, territories, etc., are governed
by one central power.

Federalists- a member of the Federalist party

Dual Federalism-the federal government and the states government have separate, but equal, powers.
Also known as layer cake federalism

Cooperative Federalism-Both the federal and states governments share equal powers when it comes
to the nation. Often called marble cake federalism

New Federalism- federalism during the Reagan era; more power was given to the states'
government
Block grants-grants giving to state governments with little restrictions on how to handle
the money

Unfunded mandates- issues from the national government to the state governments, following a
certain order without offering funds to aid the states in achieving the national governments requirement

Judicial Federalism- when Supreme Court and the Judiciary have the ability to influence
federalism.

Fiscal Federalism- Federalism where the use of funds help support a national program.

Progressive Federalism- most recent form of federalism; allows states to have greater
control over certain powers usually reserved for the national government.

REVIEW QUESTIONS:

1. What is federalism?


2. Which two types of federalism are mentioned above?


3. Dual Federalism is the belief of...?


4. Marble Cake Federalism is...?


5. T/F Marble Cake and Layer Cake Federalism are two ways to say the same
thing.


6. The Devolution Revolution is...?


7. In Bush Federalism, the power of the central government...?

Works Cited

"3. Federalism: U.S. v. The States, Topic Overview." 3. Federalism:
U.S. v. The States, Topic Overview. Democracy In America, n.d. Web.
20 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.learner.org/courses/democracyinamerica/dia_3/dia_3_to
pic.html>.

Eugene, Boyd. "The History of American Federalism -- An Overview."
The History of American Federalism -- An Overview. N.p., 26 Jan.
1997. Web. 21 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.cas.umt.edu/polsci/faculty/greene/federalismhistory.htm
>.

"Federalism." Federalism. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2012.
<http://www2.fiu.edu/~ganapati/3003/federalism.html>.

"Federalism." Federalism. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/fed.htm>.

N.p., n.d. Web.
<http://www.csun.edu/~rprovin/PDFs/stages.pdf>.

O'Connor, Karen, Alixandra B. Yanus, and Larry J. Sabato. American
Government Roots and Reform. 2011 ed. N.p.: Pearson, n.d. Print.
AP* Edition

"Types of Federalism." Stgapgov /. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2012.
<http://stgapgov.pbworks.com/w/page/7199067/Types%20of%20Fed
eralism>.



Types of Federalism
Page history last edited by jordan 4 years ago
previous section 'Types of
Power' net
section 'Problem Section: Gun Control'
When the American government was first established in the Constitution it was
deemed to be run under a system of federalism. Federalism, a term that sprouted from
the Federalists, is the idea that the governmental sovereignty is divided between the
central governing national authority, and another political unit, such as states. This is
exactly like the American government which has a national government, and the state
government. There are some restrictions on the national government which are listed in
the Constitution in Articles 1, 2, and 3. There are however, no restrictions on the state
governments, and in fact, the Constitution only enables the state governments and
guarantees them rights that are not listed in the Constitution. There are many different
types of federalism including dual federalism, cooperative federalism, creative
federalism, fiscal federalism, and new federalism among others. The three main types of
Federalism are;
Dual Federalism is the idea that the union and the state share power but the Federal
Government holds more than the individual states. This is currently how the U.S. system
works. (1)
Cooperative Federalism is the idea that the federal government and the state
government share power equally. It has never been attempted but it seems unlikely that
it would work as the state governments and the federal government would be locked in a
stalemate unable to reach compromises over important legislation. (1)
Fiscal Federalism is the type of Federalism in which the money bag controls
everything. This gives Congress massive amounts of power as it is responsible for the
American treasury. It can therefore limit the budget of any other political department it
does not belive is working towards the best interest of America. There have been several
instances in our history however of times when Congress has given full of the treasury
to the President. One example of this would be the Tonkin Gulf Resoultion in 1964
which gave President Johnsonthe ability to, "expressing the unity and determination of
the United States in supporting freedom and in protecting peace in southeast Asia".
Which as anyone can see leaves a wide space open for interpretaition. To quote Dr
Berry, it was essentially a "blank check". (2)
The definition has changed over time and history has shown us that our own actions
have created a few new forms of Federalism in American's times of crisis.
Creative Federalism is common in the United States even now, while New Federalism
was doninant type of governmental federalism from 1960 to 1980, and particuarily
during the Johnson administration in the 1960's. (1)
The key aspects of Creative Federalism or picket fence federalism are that the
federal government determined the needs of the states and provided services for them. In
this case, the federal government works directly for the states, and caters to their
needs. This involves common planning between the federal and state governments to
achieve goals that work for the states. These days, creative federalism seems to have
been diminished by cooperative federalism and the rise of the federal governments
power which started during FDR's presidency and escalated from there.
New Federalism was created in response to the power the state governments lost due to
the enforcement of civil rights and President Roosevelts New Deal in the 1960's. This
type of federalism returned rights to the local and state governments and turned federal
government powers over to the lesser governments. President Nixon prominantly
enforced this by returning the provision of block grants and revenue sharing to the state
and local governments. (1)

Work Cited
(1) Annenberg Media. "Federalism: U.S. v. the States"
(2) <http://www.learner.org/courses/democracyinamerica/dia_3/dia_3_topic.html>
(1997-2010)
(3) The Gale Group Inc. "Dictionary Definition: Fiscal
Federalism" <http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1O104-fiscalfederalism.html>
(2010)

Dual Federalism
Giving limited list of powers primary foreign policy and national defense to the national
government. Other powers to states.
Cooperative Federalism
When national, state, and local governments work together to make the government
easier.
Marble Cake Federalism
Where powers are mixed and given out to the different levels of government.
Competitive Federalism
Where state and local governments compete for different laws and powers, and then
people choose which region they live under.
Permissive Federalism
State and local governments ask the national government before doing anything.
The "New" Federalism
Says anything not stated in the constitution is a reserved power for the states.




Cooperative federalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cooperative federalism (1930s-1970s) is a concept of federalism in which national,
state, and local governments interact cooperatively and collectively to solve common
problems, rather than making policies separately but more or less equally (such as the
dual federalism of the 19th century United States) or clashing over a policy in a system
dominated by the national government.
Contents
1 The European Unions and the United States
2 United States
3 See also
4 References
The European Unions and the United States
Comparisons Between the European Union and the United States
In the Lisbon Treaty the distribution of competences in various policy areas between
Member States and the European union is redistributed in 3 categories. In the United
States soon after its creation (1789), it had exclusive competences only(changed
somewhat since then, but the basic design remain to this day). Competences not explicitly
listed belong to lower levels of governance.
EU exclusive
competence
The Union has
exclusive
competence to make
directives and
conclude
international
agreements when
provided for in a
Union legislative
act.
the customs
union
EU shared
competence
Member States cannot
exercise competence in
areas where the Union
has done so.
the internal
market
social policy,
for the aspects
defined in this
Treaty
economic,
social and
EU supporting
competence
The Union can carry out
actions to support,
coordinate or supplement
Member States' actions.
the protection
and improvement
of human health
industry
culture
tourism
education, youth,
sport and
USA exclusive
competence
USA federal
government in the 19th
century.
[1]

Internal
improvements
Subsidies
(mainly to
shipping)
Tariffs
Disposal of
public lands
Immigration
the
establishing
of the
competition
rules
necessary
for the
functioning
of the
internal
market
monetary
policy for
the Member
States
whose
currency is
the euro
the
conservation
of marine
biological
resources
under the
common
fisheries
policy
common
commercial
(trade)
policy





territorial
cohesion
agriculture and
fisheries,
excluding the
conservation of
marine
biological
resources
environment
consumer
protection
transport
trans-European
networks
energy
the area of
freedom,
security and
justice
common safety
concerns in
public health
matters, for the
aspects defined
in this Treaty
Common
Foreign and
Security Policy





vocational
training
civil protection
(disaster
prevention)
administrative
cooperation





law
Foreign policy
Copyrights
Patents
Currency





United States
In the American federal system, there are limitations on national government's ability to
carry out its policies through the executive branch of state governments. For example, in
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) the Court held that the national government
could not directly require state law enforcement officers to conduct background checks
under the Brady firearms legislation. The court explained that prior decisions warned that
"this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate
and enforce laws and regulations." And yet, there are significant advantages in a federal
system to obtain state assistance in the local implementation of federal programs.
Implementing such programs through national employees would significantly increase
the size and intrusiveness of the national government. Moreover, local implementation
may assure that these programs are implemented in ways that take local conditions into
account.
For this reason, Congress has often avoided adoption of completely nationalized
programs by one of two devices. In the first, Congress creates a delivery system for
federal programs in which the national government encourages local implementation of a
federal program by providing significant matching funds. In this context, the phrase may
be found in a number of Supreme Court and lower court federal cases. The most frequent
early use of the phrase may be found in a series of cases describing the paradigm for
federally sponsored welfare programs such as medical assistance or the former Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) programs in which a participating state's
program is financed largely by the Federal Government, on a matching fund basis,
subject to federal mandatory regulations. See for example, King v. Smith and a series of
subsequent AFDC cases. More recently, the phrase has been used in connection with
other federal programs built on the cooperative federalism model. See California v. U.S.
438 U.S. 645 (1978) (Reclamation Act) and Schaffer v. Weist (Special education). Here,
the motivation for State compliance is that absent state compliance with federal
conditions, the state loses significant federal funding.
The second method of encouraging states to implement federal programs is described in
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992). In this form, the Congress states that it
will take over the regulation of an activity at the national level, unless the State itself
implements its own program of regulation meeting minimum federal standards.
[2]
Here,
the motivation for State compliance is that absent state regulation, the state loses power
over the regulated area entirely. In New York v. United States, the court explained:
"....where Congress has the authority to regulate private activity under the Commerce
Clause, we have recognized Congress' power to offer States the choice of regulating that
activity according to federal standards or having state law preempted by federal
regulation. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Association. See also FERC
v. Mississippi. This arrangement, which has been termed a program of cooperative
federalism, Hodel, supra, is replicated in numerous federal statutory schemes. These
include the Clean Water Act, see Arkansas v. Oklahoma, (Clean Water Act anticipates a
partnership between the States and the Federal Government, animated by a shared
objective); the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, see Gade v. National Solid
Wastes Management Assn., the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, see
Department of Energy v. Ohio, and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act,
see Kenaitze Indian Tribe v. Alaska."
While the federal system places limits on the ability of the national government to require
implementation by a State executive branch, or its local political subdivisions, that
limitation does not apply in the same way to State judicial systems. In part, this is
because the founders understood that state courts would be courts of general jurisdiction,
bound to apply both state and federal law. In part, it is because the State courts adjudicate
cases between citizens who are bound to comply with both state and federal law. When
the Congress seeks to establish federal legislation which governs the behavior of citizens,
the Congress is free to choose among three judicial enforcement paradigms. It may open
both federal or state courts to enforcement of that right, by specifically providing
concurrent jurisdiction in the federal courts. It may grant exclusive jurisdiction to the
federal courts, or it may choose to leave enforcement of that right to civil dispute
resolution amongst parties in State court.
References
1. Lowi, T. The End of the Republican Era (ISBN 0-8061-2887-9), University of
Oklahoma Press, 1995-2006. p. 6.
2. Hills, Roderick M. (1998). "The Political Economy of Cooperative Federalism:
Why State Autonomy Makes Sense and "Dual Sovereignty" Doesn'tAuthor".
Michigan Law Review 96 (4): 813944.
Texas Politics
Dual Federalism & Cooperative Federalism
Federalism is when multiple governments exercise power and authority over the
same people and the same territory.
For example, the governments of the United States and Pennsylvania share certain
powers (for example, the power to tax) but other powers belong exclusively to one or the
other.
This form of government was the founders' solution to fashioning a single nation out of
thirteen independent states. Federalism helped solve how to cope with diversity.

Dual federalism chart

The federal government is well-restrained and in some domains exists in tension with
state government.

Cooperative federalism chart

The federal government looms over state government, but mutual cooperation goes both
ways.
Dual Federalism
Dual federalism is a theory about the proper relationship between government and
the states, portraying the states as powerful components of the federal government --
nearly equal to the national government.
Dual federalism is composed of four essential parts:
1. The national government rules by enumerated powers only. The national
government may rule only by using powers specifically listed in the Constitution.
2. The national government has a limited set of constitutional purposes. The national
government has only limited purposes.
3. Each government unit -- nation and state -- is sovereign within its sphere.
National and state governments are sovereign in their own spheres.
4. The relationship between nation and states is best characterized by tension rather
than cooperation. The relationships between the state and national governments
are marked by tension.
Of primary importance in dual federalism is states' rights, which reserve to the states all
rights not specifically conferred on the national government by the Constitution.
According to the theory of dual federalism, a rigid wall separates the nation and the
states.
Supporters of limiting Congress to its enumerated powers cite the tenth amendment.
Supporters of giving Congress increased power cite its implied powers. Implied powers
are the powers that Congress needs to execute its enumerated powers.
Cooperative Federalism
Cooperative federalism was coined in the 1930s and acknowledges a need for
cooperation between state and federal governments.
Cooperative federalism rejects that state and national government must exist in separate
spheres and is defined by three elements:
1. National and state agencies typically undertake government functions jointly
rather than exclusively.
2. The nation and states routinely share power.
3. Power is not concentrated at any government level or in any agency. The
fragmentation of responsibilities gives people and groups access to many venues
of influence.
Federalism and the Constitution
A critical difference between cooperative and dual federalism is how they
interpret the elastic clause and Tenth Amendment.
These two sections of the Constitution define the relationship between state and national
governments. Article 1, Section 8, lists the enumerated powers of congress and ends with
the elastic clause, which gives Congress the power "to make all Laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" meaning the
enumerated powers.
The Tenth Amendment reserves for states or the people powers not assigned to the
national government or denied to the states by the Constitution. Dual federalism insists
that powers not assigned to the national government are only for states and the people,
and claims that the elastic clause is inflexible. Cooperative federalism restricts the Tenth
Amendment and posits supplements to the elastic clause.
Neo-Federalism

Federalism is the philosophy that the federal government and state governments have
shared powers, and unique powers delegated to each. This is why we have the Tenth
Amendment in the Constitution of the United States. Certain roles are meant to be taken
on by the federal government, and the areas that the federal government is not supposed
to manage, the state and local governments are.

Federalism was the prevailing ideology in early America, it led to the ratification the
Constitution, and founded the fabric for the modern American economy and
infrastructure system. The fiscal goals of Federalism we're to alleviate the burdensome
debt accrued by the states during the American Revolution, and fiscal conservatism is a
major principle in the Federalist ideology. Not because federalism argues for less
revenues and less spending, but because the federalist realizes that wasteful spending,
deficit spending, and becoming a debtor are undesirable economics and will eventually
lead to the surrendering of one's own freedom.

While being fiscally conservative, in terms of deficits and debt, federalism believes in
national spending to create an infrastructure system that links the nation together and
allows for the easy transport of goods and services. Federalism believes that spending
money to encourage economic development, enhance social mobility, and enhance one's
ability to compete in a capitalist system are desirable and must occur if a country is able
to succeed. Simply put, federalist spending policies encourage investment in America
because it will benefit America's longterm health, longevity, and future.

Federalism believes that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that the
Supreme Court should not act as oligarchs that legislate from the bench, but ensure that
the Congress and the Presidency do not step from their roles and bounds. Liberty is lost
when the Constitution is tossed to side of the street and trampled on by greedy special
interest groups, individuals, and politicians. Contrary to libertarianism, federalists
believe the best way to achieve and defend liberty is through a strong central government
that can enforce the laws of the Constitution. This was the principle debate between
Hamilton and Jefferson, which was more suitable in promoting liberty... federalist
policies, or limited government policies. Hamilton's ideas are long dead, and Jefferson is
prevailing in the modern discourse, but do not confuse Hamilton's principles as big-
government liberalism. The policies of Franklin Roosevelt and the modern progressive
movement do not care about the health of the US Constitution, nor do they care about
economic freedom, prosperity, or property rights.

Federalism was the original ideology behind American Conservatism. It was espoused
by the Federalist Party, America's first conservative party that built the country from the
bottom up, and ensured America would become a strong industrialized and modern state,
whereas Jefferson wanted a small, limited, progressive, and agrarian nation. Federalism
was later espoused by the Whig Party, then the Republican Party. Federalism became the
backbone of Republican politics and the conservative ideology form 1860-1932, and
federalism is the chief reason for America's rapid urbanization, modernization,
industrialization, surpassing the United Kingdom for the highest standard of living in the
world, and creating the largest economy the world has ever seen. Federalism was
dominant among conservatives and the Republican Party until the late 1960s, when the
party started to transform into a Jeffersonian movement. Federalism needs to be
repackaged, rebranded, and restored if this country is going to move forward, and if the
conservative movement is too survive. Federalism, not liberalism, not left-wing
progressivism, nor "Jeffersonian conservatism" (e.g. minimalist government) is
responsible for the creation of the United States and the emergence of thirteen agrarian
colonies into the world's foremost superpower, and if the United States does not re-
embrace the ideology that built this great nation, it will fade like Rome into the
scrapbooks of history.
Federalist Economic Theory

Economics is an important factor in the success or failure of a nation. During the early
years of the American Republic, the Founding Fathers debated the future economic
course of the nation: industrialization, modernization, and commercialization, or
agrarianism, regionalism, and communal stability. The first was the argument of the
Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton, the latter was the debate put forth by Thomas
Jefferson and the Republicans (commonly referred to as Democratic-Republicans by
modern historians to differentiate from the modern Republican Party). There is little
contention that modernization, commercialization and industrialization are good things to
an economy, a push for all three leads to substantial economic growth, but both modern
parties have pushed into regional economics, promoting only certain elements of the
economy that will benefit them and their backers.

Republicans generally push economic policies that benefit the financial sector (Wall
Street), and small business owners, while the Democrats push economic policies that
benefit the labor market, environmental economics, and corporate industries. They are,
in affect, embracing Jeffersons economic plan of the past with a federalist twist. Neither
economic agendas promote policies of modernization or commercialization, but they do
encourage growth, but only for the sectors the legislation and policies were designed and
geared for.

A modernized economy would benefit the financial sector and environmental
technology. Commercialization would help small businesses open into new markets, and
would aid existing corporate industries in engaging in productive commerce with new
nations, new markets, and new businesses. The combination of modernizing the
economy and expanding commerce are the key elements to expanding economic
growth. Although spending cuts and tax cuts invite incentives, they alone cannot
contribute to extensive economic growth, nor should we expect that tax cuts and spending
cuts should bear the brunt of propelling the economy forward.

Opponents will slam the classical fiscal liberalism of the Federalist Party and the
conservative ideology, but classical fiscal liberalism, by definition, equates into moderate
fiscal conservatism. The financial policies of the Federalists and the First National Bank
are polar opposites to the Democrats and the Federal Reserve. Federalist economic
ideology calls for investment by the national government into the existing economy to
spur development, expansion, and modernization. Federalist economic policies are not
predicated on printing money from thin air, nor are they based on speculation or risky
spending programs, a la the Federal Reserve, nor does it advocate wasteful spending on
an overbearing welfare state that does not solve the problem of poverty, it only enhances
the problem.

The First National Bank gave loans and credits to entrepreneurs, to existing businesses,
and to expanding businesses. Economic policies carried out by the federal government
were pro-economic growth, and focused on creating a healthy, strong, and vibrant
American economy. These policies were carried out by the federal government, not
entirely, but largely through the 1950s before economic policies started veering toward
the direction of speculation, risky lending programs, and social welfare that created more
dependency and has since become a drag on the national treasury. Throw in policies of
only tax cuts (almost always unpaid for), coupled with the new mantra of American
economic policies, the very quilt the United States is built upon is becoming weaker and
threatens to break if we are not careful and return to sound economic policies that have
worked in the past.

The economic backbone of federalism is geared toward modernization, industrialization,
and commercialization. Failure to spur economic policies that benefit all creates a
stagnant economy unable to move forward. Entrepreneurship and economic expansion
fuel the modern economy, and it is time for the United States to embrace the Hamiltonian
economic policies of investments into existing businesses, loans to aspiring
entrepreneurs, and more investments into existing businesses, if this economy is going to
remain the strongest and most vibrant on the earth.
A Lament for Federalism

Federalism is the political philosophy of where a strong central government binds
together smaller political states under one banner. Federalism is the chief political
philosophy of the United States, Canada, Germany, and Russia. But federalism was
much more than a concept between the relations of a central government and their
subservient states, it was a philosophy that advocated certain economic and cultural
policies to benefit the entire Union, not just certain individuals and businesses.

The Federalist theory of government is well known. Federalist governmental theory
promotes that the federal government reigns supreme over the smaller state
governments. However, it did not advocate a benevolent dictatorship. Federalist
governmental theory argued that the federal government needed national supremacy for
practical reasons, but that it should focus on political issues that involved the greater
Union. Under this theory, macroeconomics, taxes, defense, infrastructure, and issues
dealing with national sovereignty were to be federal issues. Issues unrelated to the
central government, microeconomics, community funding, personal and social livelihood,
and education were state or local issues. Under the federalist theory, the central
government could concentrate time and resources on the issues that applied to federal
matters, and states could concentrate time and resources on issues that applied to state
matters. In theory, everything would be efficient with neither side being overwhelmed,
underfunded, or incompetent in managing their responsibilities.

The Federalist theory of government led to the political prosperity of the United States,
but the United States has moved away from a federalist theory of government, toward a
unitary theory of government. Confusion between a federalist system and a unitary
system of government must be stressed. In a unitary government, the central government
controls and directs all aspects of government, this is includes funding for local
education, funding for local government, control over local social issues, and trying to
run macro and microeconomics together.

Yet, federalism also espoused certain macroeconomic and cultural policies to benefit the
entire nation. Federalist economic policies focuses on modernization, commercialization,
and market efficiency. Economies that are not modern and unable to engage in
commerce, are economies ripe for stagnation and inefficiency. This is the situation most
of the world finds itself today. A renewal of federalist economic policies promoting
modernization and commercialization, which includes investments into businesses,
infrastructure, economic logistics, and the national market. Federalist economic policies
were employed in the United States to astonishing success by the Republican Party
following the end of the Civil War (1861-1865). As a result, the American standard of
living surpassed Great Britain in less than 15 years, and America underwent a massive
industrial revolution, wages increased, and social mobility was a reality for many people.

Just as federalist economic theory is grounded in the idea that the federal government can
help spur economic growth, modernization, and commercialization, federalist cultural
policies are geared toward uniting the country, not dividing it. Divisive social issues are
left to the state. Federal cultural policies include promoting a national language,
promoting a core set of principles and values, and uniting all people under a common
heritage, culture, tongue, and principles. Immigrants of the past were made to learn
English, pledge allegiance to the American flag, and accept the political and social
culture of the United States, not the other way around. Hyphenated-Americanism was a
fear in the eyes of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and rightly
so. Cultural, social, language division causes conflict between neighbors. It leads people
to form enclaves, write their laws, establish their own courts, and virtually prohibits them
from being recipient to the laws of the established country.

Today, American society is rigidly divided, no longer unified under a single common
cause, banner, or set of principles. Each side is seeking to impose their own will across
the country, and those who stand in moderation are labeled apostates of their party or
philosophy. Today, Americas economy is woefully behind in the twenty-first
century. As China locks up the technology and resources for a robust twenty-first
century economy, the United States spends billions on outdated technology, means, and
has nostalgia for the days of factories employing 5,000 workers; that paradigm has sailed,
and it will never return, thus it is important to modernize for the future economy as we
move away from fossil fuels. Today, Americas government is overstretched, too large,
and too incompetent for many of the jobs theyve taken on. America is sick, and her cure
is federalism.

Federalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the political concept. For theological federalism, see Covenant
Theology.

Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by
covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term
"federalism" is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is
constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political
units (such as states or provinces). Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules
and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and
provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation.
Contents
1 European vs. American Federalism
2 Examples of federalism
o 2.1 Australia
o 2.2 Brazil
o 2.3 Canada
o 2.4 Colombia
o 2.5 India
2.5.1 Asymmetric federalism
2.5.2 Coalition politics
o 2.6 South Africa
o 2.7 Federalism in Europe
2.7.1 French Revolution
2.7.2 European Union
o 2.8 Russian Federation
o 2.9 United States
o 2.10 Venezuela
o 2.11 Federalism with two components
2.11.1 Belgium
2.11.2 Other examples
o 2.12 Proposed federalism
2.12.1 China
2.12.2 Libya
2.12.3 Philippines
2.12.4 Spain
2.12.5 United Kingdom
3 Federalism as the anarchist and libertarian socialist mode of political
organization
4 Christian Church
5 Constitutional structure
o 5.1 Division of powers
o 5.2 Organs of government
o 5.3 Other technical terms
6 Federalism as a political philosophy
7 Federalism as a concept: history
8 See also
9 Notes and references
10 In Literature
11 External links
European vs. American Federalism
Main articles: Federal Europe and Federalism in the United States
In Europe, "Federalist" is sometimes used to describe those who favor a common federal
government, with distributed power at regional, national and supranational levels. Most
European federalists want this development to continue within the European Union.
European federalism originated in post-war Europe; one of the more important initiatives
was Winston Churchill's speech in Zurich in 1946.
[1]

In the United States, federalism originally referred to belief in a stronger central
government. When the U.S. Constitution was being drafted, the Federalist Party
supported a stronger central government, while "Anti-Federalists" wanted a weaker
central government. This is very different from the modern usage of "federalism" in
Europe and the United States. The distinction stems from the fact that "federalism" is
situated in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary state.
The U.S. Constitution was written as a reaction to the Articles of Confederation, under
which the United States was a loose confederation with a weak central government.
Further, during the American Civil War, members of the Confederate States of America,
which seceded in favor of a weaker central government, referred to pro-Union soldiers of
the United States government as "Federals."
[2]
Thus in the United States "federalism"
argued for a stronger central government, relative to a confederacy.
In contrast, Europe has a greater history of unitary states than North America, thus
European "federalism" argues for a weaker central government, relative to a unitary state.
The modern American usage of the word is much closer to the European sense. As the
power of the Federal government has increased, some people have perceived a much
more unitary state than they believe the Founding Fathers intended. Most people
politically advocating "federalism" in the United States argue in favor of limiting the
powers of the federal government, especially the judiciary (see Federalist Society, New
Federalism).
In Canada, federalism typically implies opposition to sovereigntist movements (most
commonly Quebec separatism).
The governments of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, India, and Mexico, among others, are
also organized along federalist principles.
Federalism may encompass as few as two or three internal divisions, as is the case in
Belgium or Bosnia and Herzegovina. In general, two extremes of federalism can be
distinguished: at one extreme, the strong federal state is almost completely unitary, with
few powers reserved for local governments; while at the other extreme, the national
government may be a federal state in name only, being a confederation in actuality.
In 1999, the Government of Canada established the Forum of Federations as an
international network for exchange of best practices among federal and federalizing
countries. Headquartered in Ottawa, the Forum of Federations partner governments
include Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Mexico, Nigeria, and
Switzerland.
Some Christian denominations are organized on federalist principles; in these churches
this is known as ecclesiastic or theological federalism.
Examples of federalism
Australia

The States and Territories of Australia, consisting of The Australian Capital Territory
(red), New South Wales (pink), Northern Territory (yellow, top), Queensland (blue),
South Australia (purple), Tasmania (yellow, bottom), Victoria (green), and Western
Australia (orange).
On January 1, 1901 the Australian nation emerged as a federation. The Australian
continent was colonized by the United Kingdom in 1788, which subsequently established
six self-governing colonies there. In the 1890s the governments of these colonies all held
referendums on becoming a unified, independent nation. When all the colonies voted in
favour of federation, the Federation of Australia commenced, resulting in the
establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. Whilst the Federation of
Australia emerged in 1901, the States of Australia remained colonies of Britain until 1986
when the UK and Australia passed the Australia Acts. The model of Australian
federalism adheres closely to the original model of the United States of America, though
through a Westminster system.
Brazil


Brazil is a union of 26 states and one federal district, which is the site of the federal
capital, Braslia.
See also: States of Brazil
In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'tat led to the rise of the
presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known jurist Ruy
Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of
government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although
some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The 1937 Constitution, for
example, granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called
interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getlio Vargas.
Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade.
The Brazilian Constitution of 1988 introduced a new component to the ideas of
federalism, including municipalities as federal entities. Brazilian municipalities are now
invested with some of the traditional powers usually granted to states in federalism, and
although they are not allowed to have a Constitution, they are structured by an organic
law.
Canada


In Canada, the provincial governments derive all their powers directly from the
constitution. In contrast, the territories are subordinate to the federal government and are
delegated powers by it.
In Canada, the system of federalism is described by the division of powers between the
federal parliament and the country's provincial governments. Under the Constitution Act
(previously known as the British North America Act) of 1867, specific powers of
legislation are allotted. Section 91 of the constitution gives rise to federal authority for
legislation, whereas section 92 gives rise to provincial powers.
For matters not directly dealt with in the constitution, the federal government retains
residual powers; however, conflict between the two levels of government, relating to
which level has legislative jurisdiction over various matters, has been a longstanding and
evolving issue. Areas of contest include legislation with respect to regulation of the
economy, taxation, and natural resources.
Colombia
In 1858 the unitary government of Colombia, then known as the Republic of New
Granada, was dissolved and replaced by the Granadine Confederation, a decentralized
federal state. While the Colombian Civil War (18601862) resulted in the dismantling of
the fledgling confederation, the United States of Colombia that replaced it operated on
similarly federal theories, though their actual policies generally differed. Today, however,
the Republic of Colombia is a unitary constitutional republic.
India


Indian state governments led by various political parties
The Government of India (referred to as the Union Government) was established by the
Constitution of India, and is the governing authority of a federal union of 29 states and 7
union territories.
The government of India is based on a tiered system, in which the Constitution of India
delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. The
Constitution originally provided for a two-tier system of government, the Union
Government (also known as the Central Government), representing the Union of India,
and the State governments. Later, a third tier was added in the form of Panchayats and
Municipalities. In the current arrangement, The Seventh Schedule of the Indian
Constitution delimits the subjects of each level of governmental jurisdiction, dividing
them into three lists:
Union List includes subjects of national importance such as defence of the
country, foreign affairs, banking, communications and currency. The Union
Government alone can make laws relating to the subjects mentioned in the Union
List.
State List contains subjects of State and local importance such as police, trade,
commerce, agriculture and irrigation. The State Governments alone can make
laws relating to the subjects mentioned in the State List.
Concurrent List includes subjects of common interest to both the Union
Government as well as the State Governments, such as education, forest, trade
unions, marriage, adoption and succession. Both the Union as well as the State
Governments can make laws on the subjects mentioned in this list. If their laws
conflict with each other, the law made by the Union Government will prevail.

Asymmetric federalism
A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike many other forms of
federalism, it is asymmetric.
[3]
Article 370 makes special provisions for the state of
Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession. Article 371 makes special
provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram,
Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim as per their accession or state-hood deals. Also one more
aspect of Indian federalism is system of President's Rule in which the central government
(through its appointed Governor) takes control of state's administration for certain months
when no party can form a government in the state or there is violent disturbance in the
state.
Coalition politics
Although the Constitution does not say so, India is now a multilingual federation.
[3]
India
has a multi-party system,with political allegiances frequently based on linguistic, regional
and caste identities,
[4]
necessitating coalition politics, especially at the Union level.
South Africa
By the definition of most political scientists, South Africa counts as a federal state in
practice.
Federalism in Europe
Several federal systems exist in Europe, such as in Switzerland, Austria, Germany,
Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina and the European Union. Germany and the EU offer
the only examples in the world where members of the federal "upper houses" (the
Bundesrat and the Council) are neither elected nor appointed but comprise delegates of
the governments of their constituents.
Modern Germany abandoned federalism only during Nazism (19331945) and in East
Germany during from 1952 to 1990. Adolf Hitler viewed federalism as an obstacle to his
goals. As he wrote in Mein Kampf, "National Socialism must claim the right to impose its
principles on the whole German nation, without regard to what were hitherto the confines
of federal states."
[page needed]
Accordingly, the idea of a strong, centralized government has
negative associations in German politics, although prior to 1919 or 1933, many social
democrats and liberals favored centralization in principle.
[citation needed]

In Britain, an Imperial Federation was once seen as (inter alia) a method of solving the
Home Rule problem in Ireland; federalism has long been proposed
[by whom?]
as a solution
to the "Irish Problem", and more lately, to the "West Lothian question".
[5]



French Revolution
During the French Revolution, especially in 1793, "federalism" had an entirely different
meaning. It was a political movement to weaken the central government in Paris by
devolving power to the provinces.
[6][7]

European Union
Following the end of World War II, several movements began advocating a European
federation, such as the Union of European Federalists or the European Movement,
founded in 1948. Those organizations exercised influence in the European unification
process, but never in a decisive way.
[citation needed]
In 2011 also a European political party
calling for the creation of a federal Europe was established, the European Federalist
Party.
Although the drafts of both the Maastricht treaty and the Treaty establishing a
Constitution for Europe mentioned federalism, the representatives of the member
countries (all of whom would have to agree to the term) never adopted it. The strongest
advocates of European federalism have been Germany, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg
while those historically most strongly opposed have been the United Kingdom and
France; while other countries that have never campaigned specifically for a particular
means of governance in Europe are considered as federalists.
[citation needed]
Some
[who?]

would consider this the case with states such as Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Hungary. In
recent times
[when?]
the French government has become increasingly pro-European Union,
while countries like the Czech Republic have taken on the roles of primary opponents to
a stronger EU.
[citation needed]

Those uncomfortable using the F word in the EU context should feel free to refer to it
as a quasi-federal or federal-like system. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the analysis
here, the EU has the necessary attributes of a federal system. It is striking that while
many scholars of the EU continue to resist analyzing it as a federation, most
contemporary students of federalism view the EU as a federal system (See for instance,
Bednar, Filippov et al., McKay, Kelemen, Defigueido and Weingast). (R. Daniel
Kelemen)
[8]

Russian Federation
The post-Imperial nature of Russian subdivision of government changed towards a
generally autonomous model which began with the establishment of the USSR (of which
Russia was governed as part). It was liberalized in the aftermath of the Soviet Union,
with the reforms under Boris Yeltsin preserving much of the Soviet structure while
applying increasingly liberal reforms to the governance of the constituent republics and
subjects (while also coming into conflict with Chechen secessionist rebels during the
Chechen War). Some of the reforms under Yeltsin were scaled back by Vladimir Putin.
All of Russia's subdivisional entities are known as subjects, with some smaller entities,
such as the republics enjoying more autonomy than other subjects on account of having
an extant presence of a culturally non-Russian ethnic minority or, in some cases,
majority.
United States
Federalism in the United States is the evolving relationship between state governments
and the federal government of the United States. American government has evolved from
a system of dual federalism to one of associative federalism. In "Federalist No. 46,"
James Madison asserted that the states and national government "are in fact but different
agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers." Alexander
Hamilton, writing in "Federalist No. 28," suggested that both levels of government would
exercise authority to the citizens' benefit: "If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by
either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress." (1)


The United States is composed of fifty self-governing states and several territories.
Because the states were preexisting political entities, the U.S. Constitution did not need to
define or explain federalism in any one section but it often mentions the rights and
responsibilities of state governments and state officials in relation to the federal
government. The federal government has certain express powers (also called enumerated
powers) which are powers spelled out in the Constitution, including the right to levy
taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce. In addition, the
Necessary and Proper Clause gives the federal government the implied power to pass
any law "necessary and proper" for the execution of its express powers. Other powers
the reserved powersare reserved to the people or the states.
[9]
The power delegated to
the federal government was significantly expanded by the Supreme Court decision in
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), amendments to the Constitution following the Civil War,
and by some later amendmentsas well as the overall claim of the Civil War, that the
states were legally subject to the final dictates of the federal government.
The Federalist party of the United States were opposed by the Democratic-Republicans,
including powerful figures such as Thomas Jefferson. The Democratic-Republicans
mainly believed that: the Legislature had too much power (mainly because of the
Necessary and Proper Clause) and that they were unchecked; the Executive had too much
power, and that there was no check on the executive; a dictator would arise; and that a
bill of rights should be coupled with the constitution to prevent a dictator (then believed
to eventually be the president) from exploiting citizens. The federalists, on the other
hand, argued that it was impossible to list all the rights, and those that were not listed
could be easily overlooked because they were not in the official bill of rights. Rather,
rights in specific cases were to be decided by the judicial system of courts.
After the American Civil War, the federal government increased greatly in influence on
everyday life and in size relative to the state governments. Reasons included the need to
regulate businesses and industries that span state borders, attempts to secure civil rights,
and the provision of social services. The federal government acquired no substantial new
powers until the acceptance by the Supreme Court of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
From 1938 until 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court did not invalidate any federal statute as
exceeding Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. Most actions by the federal
government can find some legal support among the express powers, such as the
Commerce Clause, whose applicability has been narrowed by the Supreme Court in
recent years. In 1995 the Supreme Court rejected the Gun-Free School Zones Act in the
Lopez decision, and also rejected the civil remedy portion of the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994 in the United States v. Morrison decision. Recently, the Commerce
Clause was interpreted to include marijuana laws in the Gonzales v. Raich decision.
Dual federalism holds that the federal government and the state governments are co-
equals, each sovereign.
However, since the Civil War Era, the national courts often interpret the federal
government as the final judge of its own powers under dual federalism. The
establishment of Native American governments (which are separate and distinct from
state and federal government) exercising limited powers of sovereignty, has given rise to
the concept of "bi-federalism."
Venezuela
The Federal War ended in 1863 with the signing of the Treaty of Coche by both the
centralist government of the time and the Federal Forces. The United States of Venezuela
were subsequently incorporated under a "Federation of Sovereign States" upon principles
borrowed from the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America. In this
Federation, each State had a "President" of its own that controlled almost every issue,
even the creation of "State Armies," while the Federal Army was required to obtain
presidential permission to enter any given state.
However, more than 140 years later, the original system has gradually evolved into a
quasi-centralist form of government. While the 1999 Constitution still defines Venezuela
as a Federal Republic, it abolished the Senate, transferred competences of the States to
the Federal Government and granted the President of the Republic vast powers to
intervene in the States and Municipalities.
Federalism with two components
Belgium
Federalism in the Kingdom of Belgium is an evolving system. Belgian federalism reflects
both the linguistic communities (French and Dutch, and to a lesser extent German) and
the economic regions (Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia). These correspond to the
language areas in Belgium. Although officially there are three language areas, for all
practical purposes only two languages are relevant on the federal level, Dutch and
French:
Brussels is officially a bilingual area, but it has a French-speaking majority.
[10]

Flanders is the region associated with the Belgium's Dutch-speaking majority, i.e.
the Flemish Community.
Due to its relatively small size (approximately one percent) the German-speaking
Community of Belgium does not have much influence on national politics.
Wallonia is a French-speaking area, except for the East Cantons. French is the
second most spoken first language in Belgium, following Dutch. Within the
French-speaking Community of Belgium, there is a geographical and political
distinction between Wallonia and Brussels for historical and sociological
reasons.
[11]

On one hand, this means that the Belgian political landscape, generally speaking, consists
of only two components: the Dutch-speaking population represented by Dutch-language
political parties, and the majority populations of Wallonia and Brussels, represented by
their French-speaking parties. The Brussels region emerges as a third component.
[12]
This
specific dual form of federalism, with the special position of Brussels, consequentially
has a number of political issueseven minor onesthat are being fought out over the
Dutch/French-language political division. With such issues, a final decision is possible
only in the form of a compromise. This tendency gives this dual federalism model a
number of traits that generally are ascribed to confederalism, and makes the future of
Belgian federalism contentious.
[13][14]

On the other hand, Belgian federalism is federated with three components. An affirmative
resolution concerning Brussels' place in the federal system passed in the parliaments of
Wallonia and Brussels.
[15][16]
These resolutions passed against the desires of Dutch-
speaking parties, who are generally in favour of a federal system with two components
(i.e. the Dutch and French Communities of Belgium). However, the Flemish
representatives in the Parliament of the Brussels Capital-Region voted in favour of the
Brussels resolution, with the exception of one party. The chairman of the Walloon
Parliament stated on July 17, 2008 that, "Brussels would take an attitude".
[17]
Brussels'
parliament passed the resolution on July 18, 2008:
The Parliament of the Brussels-Capital Region approves with great majority a
resolution claiming the presence of Brussels itself at the negotiations of the
reformation of the Belgian State.
[16]

July 18, 2008

This aspect of Belgian federalism helps to explain the difficulties of partition; Brussels,
with its importance, is linked to both Wallonia and Flanders and vice-versa. This
situation, however, does not erase the traits of a confederation in the Belgian system.
Other examples


Official flag of Iraqi Kurdistan Ratio: 2:3
Current examples of two-sided federalism:
Bosnia and Herzegovina is a federation of two entities: Republika Srpska and
Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Historical examples of two-sided federalism include:
Czechoslovakia, until the Czech Republic and Slovakia separated in 1993.
The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, from 1992 to 2003 when it became a
confederation titled the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. This
confederation expired 2006 as Montenegro declared its independence.
The 1960 Constitution of Cyprus was based on the same ideas, but the union of
Greeks and Turks failed.
United Republic of Tanzania (formerly United Republic of Tanganyika and
Zanzibar), which was the union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar.
Iraq adapted a federal system in 15 October 2005, and formally recognized the
Kurdistan Region as the county's first and currently only federal region. See
Constitution of Iraq for more information regarding Iraq's method of creating
federal entities.
The Federal Republic of Cameroun operated between 1961 and 1972
Proposed federalism
It has been proposed in several unitary states to establish a federal system, for various
reasons.
China
China is the largest unitary state in the world by both population and land area. Although
China has had long periods of central rule for centuries, it is often argued that the unitary
structure of the Chinese government is far too unwieldy to effectively and equitably
manage the country's affairs. On the other hand, Chinese nationalists are suspicious of
decentralization as a form of secessionism and a backdoor for national disunity; still
others argue that the degree of autonomy given to provincial-level officials in the
People's Republic of China amounts to a de facto federalism.
Libya
Shortly after the 2011 Libyan civil war, some in the eastern region of the country
(Cyrenaica) began to call for the new regime to be federal, with the traditional three
regions of Libya (Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, and Fezzan) being the constituent units. A
group calling itself the Cyrenaican Transitional Council issued a declaration of autonomy
on 6 March 2012; this move was rejected by the National Transitional Council in
Tripoli.
[18][19][20][21]

Philippines
The Philippines is a unitary state with some powers devolved to Local Government Units
(LGUs) under the terms of the Local Government Code. There is also one autonomous
region, the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. Over the years various
modifications have been proposed to the Constitution of the Philippines, including
possible transition to a federal system as part of a shift to a parliamentary system. In
2004, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo established the Consultative
Commission which suggested such a Charter Change but no action was taken by the
Philippine Congress to amend the 1987 Constitution.
Spain
Spain is a unitary state with a high level of decentralisation (i.e., a regional state).
Federalism is accepted by parties, such as Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, Union,
Progress and Democracy and United Left. The Spanish Socialist party has recently
considered the idea of building a Federal Spain, in part, due to the increase of the Spanish
peripheral nationalisms and the Catalan proposal of self-determination referenda for
creating a Catalan State in Catalonia, either independent or within Spain.
[22][23][24]

United Kingdom
Since the 1997 referendums on devolution in Scotland and Wales, and after the Good
Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, three of the four countries of the UK have some
level of autonomy outside of Westminster's rule. To counter the increasing popularity of
Scottish nationalism and Welsh nationalism, both of which threaten the unity of the
United Kingdom (see Unionism in the United Kingdom) there have been some calls for
the UK to adopt a federal system, with each of the four home nations having its own,
equal devolved legislatures and law-making powers. This is supported by various Liberal
Democrats and the Green Party of England and Wales, and would provide a solution to
the West Lothian Question.
Federalism as the anarchist and libertarian socialist mode of political
organization
Anarchists are against the State but are not against political organization or
"governance"so long as it is self-governance utilizing direct democracy. The mode of
political organization preferred by anarchists, in general, is federalism or
confederalism.
[citation needed]
However, the anarchist definition of federalism tends to differ
from the definition of federalism assumed by pro-state political scientists. The following
is a brief description of federalism from section I.5 of An Anarchist FAQ:
"The social and political structure of anarchy is similar to that of the economic
structure, i.e., it is based on a voluntary federation of decentralised, directly
democratic policy-making bodies. These are the neighbourhood and community
assemblies and their confederations. In these grassroots political units, the concept
of "self-management" becomes that of "self-government", a form of municipal
organisation in which people take back control of their living places from the
bureaucratic state and the capitalist class whose interests it serves.
[...]
The key to that change, from the anarchist standpoint, is the creation of a network
of participatory communities based on self-government through direct, face-to-
face democracy in grassroots neighbourhood and community assemblies
[meetings for discussion, debate, and decision making].
[...]
Since not all issues are local, the neighbourhood and community assemblies will
also elect mandated and recallable delegates to the larger-scale units of self-
government in order to address issues affecting larger areas, such as urban
districts, the city or town as a whole, the county, the bio-region, and ultimately the
entire planet. Thus the assemblies will confederate at several levels in order to
develop and co-ordinate common policies to deal with common problems.
[...]
This need for co-operation does not imply a centralised body. To exercise your
autonomy by joining self-managing organisations and, therefore, agreeing to
abide by the decisions you help make is not a denial of that autonomy (unlike
joining a hierarchical structure, where you forsake autonomy within the
organisation). In a centralised system, we must stress, power rests at the top and
the role of those below is simply to obey (it matters not if those with the power
are elected or not, the principle is the same). In a federal system, power is not
delegated into the hands of a few (obviously a "federal" government or state is a
centralised system). Decisions in a federal system are made at the base of the
organisation and flow upwards so ensuring that power remains decentralised in
the hands of all. Working together to solve common problems and organise
common efforts to reach common goals is not centralisation and those who
confuse the two make a serious error -- they fail to understand the different
relations of authority each generates and confuse obedience with co-operation."
[25]

Christian Church
Federalism also finds expression in ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). For
example, presbyterian church governance resembles parliamentary republicanism (a form
of political federalism) to a large extent. In Presbyterian denominations, the local church
is ruled by elected elders, some of which are ministerial. Each church then sends
representatives or commissioners to presbyteries and further to a general assembly. Each
greater level of assembly has ruling authority over its constituent members. In this
governmental structure, each component has some level of sovereignty over itself. As in
political federalism, in presbyterian ecclesiology there is shared sovereignty.
Other ecclesiologies also have significant representational and federalistic components,
including the more anarchic congregational ecclesiology, and even in more hierarchical
episcopal ecclesiology.
Some Christians argue that the earliest source of political federalism (or federalism in
human institutions; in contrast to theological federalism) is the ecclesiastical federalism
found in the Bible. They point to the structure of the early Christian Church as described
(and to many, prescribed) in the New Testament. This is particularly demonstrated in the
Council of Jerusalem, described in Acts chapter 15, where the Apostles and elders
gathered together to govern the Church; the Apostles being representatives of the
universal Church, and elders being such for the local church. To this day, elements of
federalism can be found in almost every Christian denomination, some more than others.
Constitutional structure
Division of powers
In a federation, the division of power between federal and regional governments is
usually outlined in the constitution. It is in this way that the right to self-government of
the component states is usually constitutionally entrenched. Component states often also
possess their own constitutions which they may amend as they see fit, although in the
event of conflict the federal constitution usually takes precedence.
In almost all federations the central government enjoys the powers of foreign policy and
national defense. Were this not the case a federation would not be a single sovereign
state, per the UN definition. Notably, the states of Germany retain the right to act on their
own behalf at an international level, a condition originally granted in exchange for the
Kingdom of Bavaria's agreement to join the German Empire in 1871. Beyond this the
precise division of power varies from one nation to another. The constitutions of
Germany and the United States provide that all powers not specifically granted to the
federal government are retained by the states. The Constitution of some countries like
Canada and India, on the other hand, state that powers not explicitly granted to the
provincial governments are retained by the federal government. Much like the US
system, the Australian Constitution allocates to the Federal government (the
Commonwealth of Australia) the power to make laws about certain specified matters
which were considered too difficult for the States to manage, so that the States retain all
other areas of responsibility. Under the division of powers of the European Union in the
Lisbon Treaty, powers which are not either exclusively of European competence or
shared between EU and state are retained by the constituent states.
Where every component state of a federation possesses the same powers, we are said to
find 'symmetric federalism'. Asymmetric federalism exists where states are granted
different powers, or some possess greater autonomy than others do. This is often done in
recognition of the existence of a distinct culture in a particular region or regions. In
Spain, "historical communities" such as Navarre, Galicia, Catalonia, and the Basque
Country have more powers than other autonomous communities, partly to deal with their
distinctness and to appease nationalist leanings, partly out of respect of privileges granted
earlier in history.
It is common that during the historical evolution of a federation there is a gradual
movement of power from the component states to the centre, as the federal government
acquires additional powers, sometimes to deal with unforeseen circumstances. The
acquisition of new powers by a federal government may occur through formal
constitutional amendment or simply through a broadening of the interpretation of a
government's existing constitutional powers given by the courts.
Usually, a federation is formed at two levels: the central government and the regions
(states, provinces, territories), and little to nothing is said about second or third level
administrative political entities. Brazil is an exception, because the 1988 Constitution
included the municipalities as autonomous political entities making the federation
tripartite, encompassing the Union, the States, and the municipalities. Each state is
divided into municipalities (municpios) with their own legislative council (cmara de
vereadores) and a mayor (prefeito), which are partly autonomous from both Federal and
State Government. Each municipality has a "little constitution", called "organic law" (lei
orgnica). Mexico is an intermediate case, in that municipalities are granted full-
autonomy by the federal constitution and their existence as autonomous entities
(municipio libre, "free municipality") is established by the federal government and cannot
be revoked by the states' constitutions. Moreover, the federal constitution determines
which powers and competencies belong exclusively to the municipalities and not to the
constituent states. However, municipalities do not have an elected legislative assembly.
Federations often employ the paradox of being a union of states, while still being states
(or having aspects of statehood) in themselves. For example, James Madison (author of
the US Constitution) wrote in Federalist Paper No. 39 that the US Constitution "is in
strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its
foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of
the Government are drawn, it is partly federal, and partly national..." This stems from the
fact that states in the US maintain all sovereignty that they do not yield to the federation
by their own consent. This was reaffirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, which reserves all powers and rights that are not delegated to the Federal
Government as left to the States and to the people.
Organs of government
The structures of most federal governments incorporate mechanisms to protect the rights
of component states. One method, known as 'intrastate federalism', is to directly represent
the governments of component states in federal political institutions. Where a federation
has a bicameral legislature the upper house is often used to represent the component
states while the lower house represents the people of the nation as a whole. A federal
upper house may be based on a special scheme of apportionment, as is the case in the
senates of the United States and Australia, where each state is represented by an equal
number of senators irrespective of the size of its population.
Alternatively, or in addition to this practice, the members of an upper house may be
indirectly elected by the government or legislature of the component states, as occurred in
the United States prior to 1913, or be actual members or delegates of the state
governments, as, for example, is the case in the German Bundesrat and in the Council of
the European Union. The lower house of a federal legislature is usually directly elected,
with apportionment in proportion to population, although states may sometimes still be
guaranteed a certain minimum number of seats.
In Canada, the provincial governments represent regional interests and negotiate directly
with the central government. A First Ministers conference of the prime minister and the
provincial premiers is the de facto highest political forum in the land, although it is not
mentioned in the constitution.
Federations often have special procedures for amendment of the federal constitution. As
well as reflecting the federal structure of the state this may guarantee that the self-
governing status of the component states cannot be abolished without their consent. An
amendment to the constitution of the United States must be ratified by three-quarters of
either the state legislatures, or of constitutional conventions specially elected in each of
the states, before it can come into effect. In referendums to amend the constitutions of
Australia and Switzerland it is required that a proposal be endorsed not just by an overall
majority of the electorate in the nation as a whole, but also by separate majorities in each
of a majority of the states or cantons. In Australia, this latter requirement is known as a
double majority.
Some federal constitutions also provide that certain constitutional amendments cannot
occur without the unanimous consent of all states or of a particular state. The US
constitution provides that no state may be deprived of equal representation in the senate
without its consent. In Australia, if a proposed amendment will specifically impact one or
more states, then it must be endorsed in the referendum held in each of those states. Any
amendment to the Canadian constitution that would modify the role of the monarchy
would require unanimous consent of the provinces. The German Basic Law provides that
no amendment is admissible at all that would abolish the federal system.
Other technical terms
Fiscal federalism federalism involving the transfer of funds between different
levels of government.
Formal federalism (or 'constitutional federalism') the delineation of powers is
specified in a written constitution.
Executive federalism (also known as 'administrative federalism').
Federalism as a political philosophy
The meaning of federalism, as a political movement, and of what constitutes a 'federalist',
varies with country and historical context.
[citation needed]
Movements associated with the
establishment or development of federations can exhibit either centralising or
decentralising trends.
[citation needed]
For example, at the time those nations were being
established, factions known as "federalists" in the United States and Australia advocated
the formation of strong central government. Similarly, in European Union politics,
federalists mostly seek greater EU integration. In contrast, in Spain and in post-war
Germany, federal movements have sought decentralisation: the transfer of power from
central authorities to local units. In Canada, where Quebec separatism has been a political
force for several decades, the "federalist" impulse aims to keep Quebec inside Canada.
Federalism as a concept: history
The Oxford English Dictionary first records the English word federalism as occurring in
print in 1793 with reference to French politics,
[26]
though anti-federalism appears as early
as 1788.
[27]

See also
Federal republic
Asymmetric federalism
Federacy
Forum of Federations
Anti-Federalism
Federal Union
Confederation
Consociationalism
Federalist
Federalist Society
Federation
Pillarisation
Subsidiarity principle
Layer cake federalism
States' rights
Cooperative Federalism
Union of Utrecht
Democratic World Federalists
World Federalist Movement
Devolution (in contrast)
Notes and references
1. Winston Churchill's speech in Zurich in 1946
2. Free Dictionary: Federal soldier
3. Indian Constitution at Work. NCERT. pp. 232, 233.
4. Johnson, A "Federalism: The Indian Experience ", HSRC Press,1996, Pg 3, ISBN
5. "UK Politics: Talking Politics The West Lothian Question". BBC News. 1 June
1998.
6. Bill Edmonds, "'Federalism' and Urban Revolt in France in 1793," Journal of
Modern History (1983) 55#1 pp 22-53 in JSTOR
7. Franois Furet and Mona Ozouf, eds. A Critical Dictionary of the French
Revolution (1989), pp. 54-64
8. Kelemen, R. Daniel (September 2005). "Built to Last? The durability of EU
federalism" (PDF). Princeton University. Retrieved 2011-11-28.
9. "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA With
Explanatory Notes". U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International
Information Programs.
10. (Dutch)Taalgebruik in Brussel en de plaats van het Nederlands. Enkele recente
bevindingen, Rudi Janssens, Brussels Studies, Nummer 13, 7 January 2008 (see
page 4).
11. Historically, the Walloons were for a federalism with three components and the
Flemings for two. (See: Witte, Els & Craeybeckx, Jan. Politieke geschiedenis van
Belgi. Antwerpen, SWU, pp. 455, 459-460.) This difference is one of the
elements which makes the Belgian issue so complicated. The Flemings wanted to
defend their language while the Walloons wanted to defend their economy: It is
true that the Walloon movement, which has never stopped affirming that Wallonia
is part of the French cultural area, has never made this cultural struggle a
priority, being more concerned to struggle against its status as a political
minority and the economic decline which was only a corollary to it. (Wallonia
today - The search for an identity without nationalist mania - (1995)
12. Charles Picqu, Minister-President of the Brussels-Capital Region said in a
September, 2008 declaration in Namur at the National Walloon Feast : It is,
besides, impossible to have a debate about the institutions of Belgium in which
Brussels would be excluded. (French Il n'est d'ailleurs, pas question d'imaginer un
dbat institutionnel dont Bruxelles serait exclu. [1]) The Brussels-Capital Region
has claimed and obtained a special place in the current negotiations about the
reformation of the Belgian state. (French Pendant 18 ans, Bruxelles est demeure
sans statut (...) L'absence de statut pour Bruxelles s'expliquait par la diffrence de
vision que partis flamands et partis francophones en avaient: [les partis flamands
taient] allergiques la notion de Rgion (...) les francophones (...) considraient
que Bruxelles devait devenir une Rgion part entire (...) Les partis flamands
ont accept [en 1988] la cration d'une troisime Rgion et l'exercice par celle-ci
des mmes comptences que celles des deux autres... C.E. Lagasse, Les nouvelles
institutions politiques de la Belgique et de l'Europe, Erasme, Namur, 2003, pp.
177- 178 ISBN )
13. "Brussels". Encyclopdia Britannica.
14. "Bruxelles dans l'oeil du cyclone" (in French). France 2.
15. La Libre Belgique 17 juillet 2008
16. La Libre Belgique, 19 juillet 2008
17. Le Vif
18. "Eastern Libya declares autonomy". Russia Today. 6 March 2012. Retrieved 6
March 2012.
19. "Eastern Libya declares semiautonomous region". Google News. The Associated
Press. 6 March 2012. Retrieved 6 March 2012.
20. "Thousands rally in Libya against autonomy for east". Reuters. 9 March 2012.
21. Thomson Reuters Foundation | News, Information and Connections for Action.
Trust.org (2012-03-06). Retrieved on 2013-07-12.
22. Federalism. El Pas.
23. El PSOE plantea una reforma de la Constitucin para una Espaa federal. El
Pas.
24. Mas encarga el diseo de un Estado cataln. El Pas.
25. Anarchist Writers. "I.5 What could the social structure of anarchy look like?" An
Anarchist FAQ. http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI5
26. Oxford English Dictionary s.v. federalism: "E. Burke Remarks Policy Allies in
Wks. VII. 133 We see every man that the jacobins chuse to apprehend..conveyed
to prison..whether he is suspected of royalism, or federalism, moderantism,
democracy royal, or [etc.]."
27. Oxford English Dictionary s.v. anti-federal
In Literature
In the futurist story On Deception Watch: A World Federation Novel by David H.
Spielberg, a plausible high-tech path is created to an economic-based new
paradigm for the legitimacy of governance. Leveraged off the successful
development of laser fusion energy, the United States and The People's Republic
of China join forces to change the world.
External links
P.-J. Proudhon, The Principle of Federation, 1863.
A Comparative Bibliography: Regulatory Competition on Corporate Law
A Rhetoric for Ratification: The Argument of the Federalist and its Impact on
Constitutional Interpretation
National
Teaching about Federalism in the United States - From the Education Resources
Information Center Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education
Bloomington, Indiana.
An Ottawa, Canada-based international organization for federal countries that
share best practices among countries with that system of government
Tenth Amendment Center Federalism and States Rights in the U.S.
BackStory Radio episode on the origins and current status of Federalism
Constitutional law scholar Hester Lessard discusses Vancouver's Downtown
Eastside and jurisdictional justice McGill University, 2011
General Federalism
Asymmetric federalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Asymmetric federalism or asymmetrical federalism is found in a federation or
confederation in which different constituent states possess different powers: one or more
of the states has considerably more autonomy than the other substates, although they have
the same constitutional status. The division of powers between substates is not
symmetric. This is in contrast to symmetric federalism, where no distinction is made
between constituent states. As a result, it is frequently proposed as a solution to the
dissatisfactions that arise when one or two constituent units feel significantly different
needs from the others, as the result of an ethnic, linguistic or cultural difference.
An asymmetric federation is similar to a federacy where one of the substates enjoys
considerably more independence than the others. The difference between an asymmetric
federation and federacy is indistinct; a federacy is essentially an extreme case of an
asymmetric federation, either due to large differences in the level of autonomy, or the
rigidity of the constitutional arrangements. An asymmetric federation however has to
have a federal constitution and all states in federation have the same formal status
("state"), while in a federacy independent substate has a different status ("autonomous
region").
Contents
1 Types
2 National examples
o 2.1 Canada
o 2.2 India
o 2.3 Iraq
o 2.4 Malaysia
o 2.5 Russia
o 2.6 United States
o 2.7 Other countries
2.7.1 Unitary states
2.7.1.1 Indonesia
2.7.1.2 Italy
2.7.1.3 Spain
2.7.1.4 United Kingdom
3 References
Types
Asymmetrical federalism can be divided into two types of agreements or arrangements.
The first type resolves differences in legislative powers, representation in central
institutions, and rights and obligations that are set in the constitution. This type of
asymmetry can be called de jure asymmetry (Brown 2). The second type reflects
agreements which come out of national policy, opting out, and (depending on ones
definition of the term) bilateral and ad hoc deals with specific provinces, none of which
are entrenched in the constitution. This type of asymmetry is known as de facto
asymmetry. The Canadian federation uses a combination of these, which make up its
asymmetrical character.
National examples
Canada
The Constitution of Canada is broadly symmetric but contains certain specific sections
that apply only to certain provinces. In practice, a degree of asymmetry is created as a
result of the evolution of the Canadian federal experiment, individual federal-provincial
agreements, and judicial interpretation. Asymmetrical federalism has been much
discussed as a formula for stability in Canada, meeting the aspirations of French-speaking
Quebec for control over its cultural and social life without removing it from the national
federation, where it coexists with nine largely English-speaking provinces.
For example, tax collection is often a federal responsibility but in Quebec both the federal
and Quebec governments retain the ability to collect both corporate, personal and sales
taxes. In some other provinces, provincial governments collect only sales or corporate
taxes.
[citation needed]

A recent example of asymmetry in the Canadian federation can be found in the terms of
the September 2004 federal-provincial-territorial agreement on health care and the
financing thereof.
[1]
The Government of Quebec supported the broader agreement but
insisted on a separate communiqu in which it was specified, among other things, that
Quebec will apply its own wait time reduction plan in accordance with the objectives,
standards and criteria established by the relevant Quebec authorities; that the Government
of Quebec will report to Quebecers on progress in achieving its objectives, and will use
comparable indicators, mutually agreed to with other governments; and that funding
made available by the Government of Canada will be used by the Government of Quebec
to implement its own plan for renewing Quebec's health system.
[2]

For example, Quebec operates its own pension plan, while the other nine provinces are
covered by the federal/provincial Canada Pension Plan. Quebec has extensive authority
over employment and immigration issues within its borders, matters that are handled by
the federal government in all the other provinces.
Such an arrangement has led to criticism in the English-speaking provinces, where there
is fear that Quebec is enjoying favouritism in the federal system. It, however, provides a
useful lever for those who want to decentralize the structure as a whole, transferring more
powers from the centre to the provinces overall, a trend that dominated Canadian politics
for decades.
India
The Government of India (referred to as the Union Government or Central Government)
was established by the Constitution of India, and is the governing authority of a federal
union of 28 states and 7 union territories.
The governance of India is based on a tiered system, wherein the Constitution of India
appropriates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. The
Constitution uses the Seventh Schedule to delimit the subjects under three categories,
namely the Union list, the State list and the Concurrent list.
A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that it is asymmetric.
[3]
Article 370 makes
special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession.
Article 371 makes special provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal
Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim as per their accession or
statehood deals.
Although the Constitution did not envisage it, India is now a multilingual federation.
[4]

India has a multi-party system with political allegiances frequently based on linguistic,
regional and caste identities,
[5]
necessitating coalition politics, especially at the Union
level.
Iraq
The relationship between Iraqi Kurdistan and other states of the Iraq federation can be
characterized as asymmetric federalism. The political and cultural distinctiveness of Iraqi
Kurdistan is lawfully recognized in Article 5 of the Iraqi Constitution. Iraqi Kurdistan is
the sole federative region in Iraq, which enjoyed its separative political entity as de facto
state from 1991 to 2003, and voluntarily rejoined a federal democratic Iraq. Iraqi
Kurdistan is the sole region in Iraq that enjoys security and political and economic
development as of 2007.
[citation needed]

Malaysia
Malaysia is a federation of 13 states formed in 1963 by the merger of the independent
Federation of Malaya and the formerly British colonies of Singapore, Sabah, and
Sarawak.
Under the terms of the federation, Sabah and Sarawak are granted significant autonomy
in excess of that exercised by the 11 Malayan states, most notably the control over
immigration to these two states.
Singapore was a part of Malaysia until 1965. During its time as a state of Malaysia,
Singapore enjoyed autonomy in setting labour and education policies.
Russia
The Russian Federation consists of 83 (85 counting disputed Crimean territories) federal
subjects, all equal in federal matters but enjoying six more or less different levels of
autonomy.
A republic is the most autonomous subject. Each has its own constitution, allowed to has
its own official language and meant to be home to a specific ethnic minority. An
autonomous okrug also has a substantial ethnic minority, but not allowed to has own
constitution and official language. An oblast, a krai, and an autonomous oblast is the
subjects without a substantial ethnic minority, completely equal to an autonomous okrug
with other rights. A federal city is a major city that function as separate region.
[6]

United States
As far as the fifty proper states are concerned, the United States is a symmetric
federation, where every state has the same powers. However, the U.S. has a number of
insular areas directly under the control of the federal government, with various degrees of
autonomy. The District of Columbia is not an insular area but is directly controlled by the
federal government, with limited autonomy. The statute that admitted Texas to the Union
reserved a right for the State's legislature to subsequently divide Texas into as many as
five new States, but it is not clear whether Congress has bound itself in advance by this
Act to admit all or indeed any of these new States.
Other countries
Asymmetrical federalism is also seen in such federal systems as Belgium and
Switzerland, where two or more languages are official and well established. It is
strikingly absent in the United States, where the Constitution and long practice make the
states, no matter how different in size or culture, precisely equal in standing and powers.
There is a parallel debate in the development of regional institutions, such as the
European Union, over whether all member states should be treated identically. At
present, various countries have opt-outs from specific aspects of EU law. Some see this
as a model for the future development of the EU, as a way of respecting different national
traditions, whilst others object, arguing that it is inconsistent with the original ideals of
European integration.
Asymmetrical federalism has been suggested as an important part of any solution for the
conflict in Sri Lanka, where tension between majority Sinhalese and minority Tamils has
led to periods of civil war separated by periods of general mistrust.
Unitary states
Although they are not properly federations, many unitary states with devolved self-
governing regions have a structure of government that resembles that found in an
asymmetric federation.
Indonesia
In Indonesia, although the form of state is Unitary, four regions were given the special
status of autonomy (keistimewaan) as provinces. They were namely Aceh, Jakarta,
Jogjakarta, and West Papua. These regions were given special statuses based on the
constitutional laws of special autonomy (Undang-Undang Keistimewaan Daerah) with
each having their own special degree of special autonomy:
Aceh exercises the Sharia law bond with the Aceh traditional culture system of
government instead of using the Unitary System the others Provinces had. Besides that,
Aceh is also granted the rights over the participation of regional parties in their province
unlike other provinces.
Jakarta is the capital city and, unlike other cities in Indonesia, which were granted a
second-tier of country subdivision or the same degree as a regency, exercises the
autonomous power the same as a first-tier level of country subdivision does.
Jogjakarta was granted special status over the exercise and involvement of the royal
family of Keraton Jogjakarta and Kadipaten Pakualaman, where the Sultan of Jogjakarta
rules the province in charge, taking the place the equal as a governor in other provinces.
Acting as his deputy is the Adipati of Pakualam. The two rule as the executive leaders of
Jogjakarta.
Papua/Irian Jaya is granted a special status over the exercise of legislative power. Papua
has a separate legislative council, the MRP (Majelis Rakyat Papua/Papuan People's
Assembly), which exercises legislative power over Papua inside the People's Consultative
Assembly, the Legislative Council of Indonesia.
Italy
In Italy, five regions (namely Sardinia, Sicily, Trentino-Alto Adige/Sdtirol, Aosta
Valley and Friuli-Venezia Giulia) have been granted special status of autonomy. Their
statutes are constitutional laws approved by the Italian Parliament, granting them
relatively broad powers in relation to legislation and administration, but also significant
financial autonomy. They keep between 60% (Friuli-Venezia Giulia) and 100% (Sicily)
of all taxes and decide how to spend the revenues. These regions became autonomous in
order to take into account that they host linguistic minorities (German-speaking in
Trentino-Alto Adige/Sdtirol, French-speaking in Aosta Valley, Slovenians in Friuli-
Venezia Giulia) or are geographically isolated (the two islands, but also Friuli-Venezia
Giulia).
Spain
In Spain, which is either called an "imperfect federation"
[7]
or a "federation in all but its
name",
[8]
the central government has granted different levels of autonomy to its substates,
considerably more to the autonomous communities of Catalonia, the Basque Country,
Valencia, Andalusia, Navarre and Galicia and considerably less to the others, out of
respect for nationalist sentiment and rights these regions have enjoyed historically.
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, England has no self-government and is ruled directly by the
British Parliament, but Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have varying degrees of
autonomy. However, many people believe that that asymmetrical devolution of powers
(most notably to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly) is unfair, which causes the
ongoing West Lothian question.
References
Stepan, Alfred "Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the U.S. Model" in the
Journal of Democracy 10:4 October 1999 can be accessed here
Brown, Douglas. Whos Afraid of Asymmetrical Federalism? A Summary
Discussion. 2005 Special Series on Asymmetric Federalism. Institute of
Intergovernmental Relations, Queens University. 2005
1. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/medi-assur/fptcollab/2004-fmm-rpm/index_e.html
2. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/medi-assur/fptcollab/2004-fmm-rpm/bg-
fi_quebec_e.html
3. Indian Constitution at Work The Philosophy of the Constitution, NCERT, Pg.
232.
4. Indian Constitution at Work The Philosophy of the Constitution, NCERT, Pg.
233.
5. Johnson, A "Federalism: The Indian Experience ", HSRC Press,1996, Pg 3, ISBN
0-7969-1699-3
6. "The Constitution of Russia". http://archive.kremlin.ru/. Retrieved 23 June 2014.
7. Moreno according to Lijphart, A. Patterns of Democracy (1999) Yale, p.191
8. Elazar, D.J. Federal Systems of the World: A Handbook of Federal, Confederal
and Autonomy Arrangements (1991) Essex, p.228
Federal Union
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Federal Union is a Pro-European British group launched in November 1938, to advocate
a Federal Union of Europe as a post-war aim. The founders of the organisation were
Charles Kimber (1912-2008),
[1]
Derek Rawnsley and Patrick Ransome.
[2]
Other noted
members of Federal Union included Harold Wilson, Barbara Wootton, C. E. M. Joad,
Stephen King-Hall and Philip Kerr, 11th Marquess of Lothian.
[2]
In 1940 the group set up
a Federal Union Research Institute (FURI), chaired by William Beveridge, to discuss the
direction of post-war European integration. FURI attracted contributors from across the
political spectrum, including F.A. Hayek, J. B. Priestley, H. N. Brailsford, Lionel
Robbins and Arnold Toynbee.
[3]

In 1956 it argued for British participation in the European Economic Community.
[2]
It
continues to exist today, arguing for federalism for the whole of Europe and the world.
Its description of federalism is that it divides political power between levels of
government to achieve the best combination of democracy and effectiveness. Federalism
is not the bureaucratic centralisation of popular myth.
Federal Union believes that democracy and the rule of law should apply between states as
well as within them. Federal Union is also the British section of the Union of European
Federalists and of the World Federalist Movement.
See also
Federalism
Federal Europe
References
1. Obituary:Sir Charles Kimber Daily Telegraph, 22 April 2008. Retrieved 20
January 2013.
2. Peter Barberis, John McHugh, Mike Tyldesley, Encyclopedia of British and Irish
Political Organizations: Parties, Groups and Movements of the 20th Century,
Continuum International Publishing Group, 2000, ISBN 0826458149. (p.135)
3. Michael Burgess, The British Tradition of Federalism. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ
Press, 1995. ISBN 0838636187 (p.142)
New Federalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New Federalism is a political philosophy of devolution, or the transfer of certain powers
from the United States federal government back to the states. The primary objective of
New Federalism, unlike that of the eighteenth-century political philosophy of Federalism,
is the restoration to the states of some of the autonomy and power which they lost to the
federal government as a consequence of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.
As a policy theme, New Federalism typically involves the federal government providing
block grants to the states to resolve a social issue. The federal government then monitors
outcomes but provides broad discretion to the states for how the programs are
implemented. Advocates of this approach sometimes cite a quotation from a dissent by
Louis Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann:
I t is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous
state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and
economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.
From 1937 to 1995, the Supreme Court of the United States did not void a single Act of
Congress for exceeding Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United
States Constitution, instead holding that anything that could conceivably have even a
slight impact on commerce was subject to federal regulation. It was thus seen as a
(narrow) victory for federalism when the Rehnquist Court reined in federal regulatory
power in United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000).
The Supreme Court wavered, however, in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), holding that the
federal government could outlaw the use of marijuana for medical purposes under the
Commerce Clause even if the marijuana was never bought or sold, and never crossed
state lines. How broad a view of state autonomy the Court will take in future decisions
remains unclear. (See Gonzales v. Oregon)
Justice O'Connor, dissenting in Gonzalez (transcript), began her opinion by citing United
States v. Lopez, which she followed with a federalist reference to Justice Louis Brandeis's
dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann.
Contents
1 Education
2 Related legislation
3 See also
4 References
5 Sources
Education
Education has been controversial under New Federalism, but for different reasons.
Almost all groups, State and Federal, agree that a controlled education system is
absolutely critical. The division, however, is that some believe that the education system
should be nationally united (and therefore controlled by the federal government), while
opponents believe that education should vary by State (and therefore be controlled by the
State governments).
Some New Federalists, such as President Ronald Reagan, have flirted with the idea of
abolishing the Department of Education, but the effort has been unsuccessful. During the
Presidency of George W. Bush, the president and Congress cooperated to pass the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, which required states to meet federal testing
standards.
[1]
Utah was the first state to reject NCLB, and the Attorney General of
Connecticut sued the federal government for underfunding NCLB.
[2]

Related legislation
1972 - State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act PL 92-512
1995 - Unfunded Mandates Reform Act PL 104-4
1996 - Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act PL 104-193
1971 - Legacy of parks
See also
Federalism
Federalism in the United States
References
1. Gerston 2007, p. 97
2. Gerston 2007, p. 100
Sources
1
American Government continuity and change. Connor, Karen O' and Larry J. Sabato.
New York: Pearson Longman. 2008.
United States Government/The Federal System
< United States Government
Contents
Colonial America - Articles of Confederation - The Constitutional Convention -
Ratification - The Three Branches - The Federal System - General Provisions -
The Bill of Rights - The Later Amendments - Legislative Branch - Executive
Branch - Judicial Branch
Contents
1 Introduction
2 Types of Federalism
3 Reserved Powers
4 Concurrent Powers
Introduction
The United States is exactly that--a Union of states. Each state has its own individual
powers. However, that does not mean that the states have power to legislate on all
matters. The Constitution of the United States spells out the powers of the federal
government and of the "several states." The Union government (known as the federal
government) has its own fields of legislation, and if federal legislation conflicts with the
state laws, the federal legislation prevails. If this occurs, the state must defer to the
federal government. The alternative, that any state may at any time leave the Union and
thus be free from Union interference in the state's internal affairs, was tried during the
American Civil War.
Types of Federalism
There are two types of federal systems. The first, dual federalism holds that the Union
and the state are equal; under this view of federalism, the Union government only has the
powers expressly granted to it, while the states retain all other powers. The second view,
cooperative federalism, states that the federal government is definitively superior to the
state government, and the federal government should stretch its powers as far as possible.
The US is a Union that does not completely fit either definition. The type of federalism in
effect really depends on who is in power at the time. In any case, the Constitution
prevents stretching federalism too far in either extreme.
All powers retained by the states are known as reserved powers. Those specifically
granted only to the Union government are known as enumerated powers. Finally,
matters over which both the Union and the state governments have control are known as
Concurrent powers.
The Tenth Amendment provides that the Union government has only the powers
expressly designated to it by the Constitution, and the states control all other matters.
Enumerated powers relate to the following:
Regulation of interstate and foreign commerce
Immigration and Citizenship
Bankruptcy
Weights and Measures
Currency
Copyrights and Patents (Special rights granted to authors and inventors relating to
the writing or discovery)
Crimes at sea
Military
Declaration of War
Control of the District of Columbia
Federal Courts
"Necessary and Proper"- The necessary and proper clause allows the Union
government to make laws necessary to utilize other powers. For instance, this
clause allows the government to jail persons who violate laws created under the
foretasted powers.
Reserved Powers
As has been mentioned, the states have control over all matters not controlled by the
Union government. Some of these matters include:
Education
Police protection
Licensing
Control local governments
Regulate individual and corporate activities in order to protect and enhance public
health, welfare, safety, morals, and convenience.
Concurrent Powers
Several powers belong concurrently to the Union and the state governments. These
include:
Transportation
Taxation
Make and enforce laws
Establish courts
Borrow
Spend money for general welfare
Take private property for public purposes, with just compensation.
Charter banks and corporations
Federalists Vs. Anti-Federalists
Made by Ethan Lonardelli
Editor: Whitney Lorello

Federalism vs. Anti-Federalist
There were many differences between federalists and anti-federalists and those
differences affected many of the Articles in the constitution. The federalists were mostly
well educated and propertied class. Most lived in settled areas along the seaboard, while
the anti-federalists were often the ill-educated and illiterate, and the poorer class in
society. Those differences led each group to support different positions and ideas on
various issues. Some of the issues that they had different ideas about were the Great
Compromise, 3/5ths Compromise, Trade Compromise, Presidency Compromise, and
Ratification. Those arguments were the main parts of the Constitution, and influenced
greatly by the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.



The Federalists believed in the signing of the Constitution, and a strong central
government, while the Anti-Federalists believed that the Articles of Confederation just
had to be amended and not replaced and supported strong influence and power to go to
the states. The Federalists thought that a strong central government was necessary to
control uncooperative states. The Anti-Federalists opposed strong central government,
opposed a standing army and a 10 square mile federal stronghold. They thought that a
strong national government threatened state power, and the rights of the common people.

The Anti-Federalists believed that the Bill of Rights, was necessary in order to protect the
rights of citizens, while the Federalists believed that the Bill of Rights was not necessary
because the federal government had limited power. The Anti-Federalists thought that a
small republic was needed because it was the only way that the peoples rights were
going to be protected, whereas the Federalists thought that a large republic was necessary
because it was the best way to protect individual freedoms.
Some things that the Federalists and Anti-Federalists did not agree on were outside of
government, and they were more morale issues. Federalists thought thtmen of experience
and talent should govern the nation. "Mobocracy" threatened the security of life and
property, therefore the rich and the educated should rule the country. The Anti-Federalists
thought that the Constitution favored wealthy men and preserved their power, and
suspected a sinister plot to suppress liberty of the masses. The Anti-Federalists were
strongly opposed to omitting any reference to God, where the Federalists were more
sympathetic to separation of church and state.

VOCAB WORDS

Federalists- a member of a major political party in the early years of the United States
favoring a strong centralized national government.

Anti-Federalists- a person who opposed the adoption of the United States Constitution.
Illiterate- unable to read or write.

Amend- to alter, modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from (amotion, bill, constitution,
etc.)

Stronghold- a place that serves as the center of a group.

Republic- a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote
and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
Mobocracy- the mob (the common people; the masses; populace or multitude) as a
ruling class.

Sinister- threatening or portending evil, harm, or trouble; ominous.

Suppress- to put an end to the activities of.

Omitting- to leave out; fail to include or mention.

Section review

1.What laws and regulations could be passed by the central government if the bill of
rights had not been established by the anti-federalists

2.How has the omitting of religious tendencies and sayings increased from the time of the
ratification to present day?

3.Determine which policies would be considered federalist or anti-federalist

a. An executive branch

b. Electoral vote

c. Articles of Confederation

d. State militias

e. Federal taxation

f. Freedom of speech

4. What advantages did federalist as a whole have over anti-federalist?


Two links to articles that to Federalism vs. Anti-Federalism

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/us/politics/gop-anti-federalism-aims-at-
education.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www
http://www.forumfed.org/en/federalism/federalismtoday.php


Works Cited

Gabriel, Trip. "NEWS ANALYSIS; G.O.P. Anti-Federalism Aims at Education." The
New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Oct. 2011. Web. 18 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/us/politics/gop-anti-federalism-aims-at-
education.html?pagewanted=all>.


"Federalist & Antifederalist Positions." N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2012.
<http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/chart.fed.pdf>.

DeLorenzo, Joshua. "[RegentsPrep U.S. History] Government: Constitutional
Convention." [RegentsPrep U.S. History] Government: Constitutional Convention. New
York State High School Regents Exam Prep Center, 2000. Web. 18 Sept. 2012.
<http://regentsprep.org/regents/ushisgov/themes/government/convention.htm>.

"ANTIFEDERALISTS VS FEDERALISTS." N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2012.
<http://staff.gps.edu/mines/APUSH%20-antifederalists_vs_federalists.htm>.

Watts, Ronald L. "Forum of Federations - Federalism." Forum of Federations -
Federalism. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.forumfed.org/en/federalism/federalismtoday.php>.



Types of Power
Page history last edited by jordan 4 years ago

previous section 'Checks and Balances and Separtation of Powers' next
section 'Types of Federalism'
The United States Constitution designates some powers to be given to the federal
government, but both the federal and state governments have attained their own powers,
as the government has been shaped. When the Constitution was written, the Founding
Fathers knew they needed a Constitution that would prevent a monarchy and ensure a
democracy. The separation of powers and checks and balances outlined by the
Constitution that keep the 3 branches in the federal government intertwined thus
preventing an oversurge of power, and the single amendment mentioning the state
governments balances the two out, ensuring that one cannot exceed the other. There are
three main types of power in the United States government, the enumerated, reserved,
and concurrent powers.
Enumerated Powers- powers only and specifically granted to the federal government
(2)
Reserved Powers- powers as defined by the 10th Constitutional amendment that
guarantees states the powers not already designated to the federal government to
be reserved for the states (1)
Concurrent Powers-powers that are guaranteed to both the state and federal govenment
on their respective government levels (3)
(graph comparing the powers)
Table of the powers designated to the federal, to the state governments, and to both:
Enumerated Powers Reserved Powers Concurrent Powers
Control over federal
government
Control of local governments
Has control over both
state and federal gov't
Military Police Protection Makes and enforces laws
Contrals Federal Courts Controls State level Courts
Establishes Courts, takes
private property for public
purposes
Deals with Currency
and Bankruptcy

Borrows and spends
money
Copyright and Patents

Charter Banks and
Corporations
Sea Crimes


Declaration of War


Controls the District of
Columbia
Individual State control

Reserves the right to the
"Necessary and Proper
Clause"
10th Amendment- powers reserved
to the states

State level Education




Transportation
The federal and state governments share powers in similar areas, and in some they
don't share any. The powers granted to the states are the ones that are not paralleled to
powers in the federal government as the 10th amendment states. "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Advantages of separate government powers
Though the role of the federal government within the states is a controversial one, there
are many advantages of this more specified separation of powers. Firstly, the
diversity among states requires a specified set of laws, rules and benefits, those that only
a state government could provide. The more individual governments working for small
areas for the common interests of the people, the more that can be individually catered to
the people of that respective county or town. If a federal government obtained all the
powers designated to the states, it would only be able to metaphorically, cater to one side
of the coin.
History of reserved powers
The idea for powers specifically guaranteed to the states dates back to the Articles of
Confederation, which modeled an earlier form of the United States government. The
Articles stated, " Every state retains its sovereignty, freedom, independence, and every
power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to
the United States, in Congress assembled." However, the Articles of Confederation, in
terms of the federal government, were weak, and did not permit the government to tax
the states and frankly, gave too much power to the states. The next document, which was
much stronger with regards to the federal government and only reserved one section for
the states, Amendment 10. Amendment 10 stated that "The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people." The anti- federalists and federalists disagreed with
the amount of powers that should be delegated to the state and federal government. With
regards to the Constitution, the federalists believed in the power of enumerated powers,
while the anti-federalists believed in the reserved powers. To appease the Anti-
Federalists the reserved powers were included in the Constitution. (1)
Purpose of the enumerated powers
The purpose of the enumerated powers, or the powers designated to the Congress, in
Article 1 of the Constitution mainly is to provide structure and stability for the United
States government, and nation. For a more complete list of federal governmental powers
of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, refer back to the Checks and Balances
and Separation of Powers page. (2)

previous section 'Checks and Balances and Separtation of Powers' next
section 'Types of Federalism'
Works Cited:
(1) G. Hornberger, Jacob "The Bill of Rights: Reserved Powers" Sept. 12,
2005
(2) <http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0505a.asp>(2001-2009)
(3) Constantine Gutzman, K.R. "Enumerated Powers"
<http://www.answers.com/topic/enumerated-powers> (2010)
(4) Answers Corp. "Concurrent Powers"
<http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_concurrent_powers> (2010)