Poli_100_first_essay

docx

School

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

100

Subject

Political Science

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ProfessorResolve99948

The contention over federal and state power has been an argument at the very foundation of the United States since the Federalists and Anti-federalists first divided over the issue. Even today, there are debates between presidential candidates and court cases over how powerful the national government ought to be relative to the states. However, due to the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the increasing size of the nation, and the essential tasks the Federal government does to run the country, such as with the FDA, the Federalists had the most compelling argument concerning holding federal power in greater esteem than the states that has served our country well for the past 200 years. The division over state vs. federal power first commenced as delegates met in 1787 to draft a new government for the United States. Both sides argued what the scope and division of power should look like between the federal and state governments, and which of the two should have greater authority. The Federalists included notable names such as George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. They were mostly big property owners in the North, conservative small farmers, businessmen, and professionals. They supported the ratification of the Constitution as they wished for a strong federal government that oversaw weaker state governments, in a system called federalism. Federalists believed this division of power to be the best as it would improve relationships between states and create a “more perfect union”. They attributed the failure of the previous Articles of Confederation to its lack of a centralized government capable of bringing the new country together. To sway support to their side, Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers in New York under “Publius” to address the concerns with a strong federal government. For example, Federalist Ten discusses the problem of factions, arguing that they can’t be removed but can be controlled with “tyranny of the majority where proper “guardians”

would be elected to lead the majority. In Federalist fifty-one Madison argues that no one person will ever become too powerful with a stronger national government because ambitious politicians will want to expand powers but checks and balances and the separation of powers will counteract it, as “ambition with counteract ambition”, explaining how anti-federalists’ worries wouldn’t come to fruition (Madison) On the flip side, Anti-federalists, such as Patrick Henry were firmly against the Constitution, especially as they feared it gave the central government too much power and didn’t retain enough for individual states. They were more divided than the Federalists, objecting to a strong federal government for slightly different reasons. Some believed federalism would threaten the sovereignty of states, leaving them irrelevant, which up until that point, had retained a lot of individual freedoms, such as minting coinage, and raising their own armies. Others feared retaining the same tyranny they had just escaped from under Great Britain, where the king held enormous power and refused to give the colonists a say in representation. Finally, some anti-federalists feared under this new system, liberties would be threatened, and a strong national government wouldn’t protect the rights of individuals (Ramos). However, the Federalists had a more compelling argument as they understood the flaws of a weak federal government. Before the Constitution, the first system of government in the United States was the Articles of Confederation, enacted in 1781. The Articles were frail, placing much of the power in the hands of the states just as the anti-federalists wished, leaving them divided and at odds with one another. There was no executive or judicial branch, no power to tax citizens, build a military, or regulate interstate commerce. Another issue was that all thirteen states were required to agree to enact changes to the document, leaving the new nation ill- equipped to respond to domestic or international threats, as each state retained its own militia,

currency, and foreign policy. With no strong national government, the weakness and ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederation exacerbated the economic problems and internal strife that plagued the nation when the states retained more power. The issue with leaving much of the power up to the states was highlighted through Shay’s Rebellion (1786) when 4,000 war veterans rebelled against the national government under the Articles of Confederation because it had seized land from farmers who couldn’t afford to pay their taxes. This event conveyed the importance of a strong federal government as a privately funded militia was required to ultimately suppress the effort because, under the Articles, the weak federal government couldn’t raise an army to fight off threats to the nation, leaving it defenseless (Lawless and Fox 31). After the new U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1787, the national government underwent a series of contestants to its power but continued to have the final word over the states under the Article VI Supremacy Clause, expressing that national laws trump conflicting state laws. However, such growth was necessary as the nation’s economy developed, and grew in both population and size. The states still retained the necessary powers needed to govern their individual areas and enjoyed constitutional protection from the national government under federalism, leaving the Anti-federalists' worries that they’d become irrelevant unfounded. For example, throughout the 1800s, instead of taking power away from the states, the federal government was pushing back against encroachment by state governments, allowing it to fully exercise its necessary and proper clause given under the Constitution. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1816) Chief Justice John Marshall argued that Congress could create a national bank as it was necessary to carry out several of its enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate commerce, collecting taxes, and borrowing money, allowing the national government to achieve

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

its constitutional responsibilities. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) also ruled in favor of the supremacy clause where only the federal government could regulate interstate commerce and New York had to yield to Congress on such issues. After the Civil War, the distribution of power between the federal and state governments was altered under dual federalism as they both operated within their own sphere of influence and did not overlap, like layers of a cake. As industrialization occurred, several Supreme Court rulings blocked attempts by both state and federal governments to expand their jurisdictional boundaries. The economic philosophy at the time also disapproved of government interference, leaving many laws passed by both levels of government to be struck down by the courts. Federal power rapidly expanded as the Great Depression swept the nation in the 1930s, bringing widespread economic hardship. Cooperative federalism was born of necessity as the federal government needed states' help to administer and implement programs to assist the United States in recovery. New Deal programs led by FDR regulated many aspects of business, created social security, and built-up infrastructure among other things. Then, in the 1960s, LBJ’s administration expanded the federal government’s role in society even more through legislation such as the Clean Air Act (1965), Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965). Though the federal government’s power has expanded, so has the states as the cooperation between levels of government has increased, giving states control over distributing and enforcing many of these new policies in their respective areas, an arrangement that’s carried over into the present day. A notable example of how the federal government oversees essential functions and a substantial amount of influence in relation to the states, precisely as the federalists envisioned, is through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first created in 1906. This federal agency is responsible for protecting public health by regulating biological products, food supply, and drugs

among other duties. Being under the federal government’s power, the FDA can set national standards for quality among these commodities, leaving them uniform and consistent across the entire country. If setting such regulations were up to the states, they would vary, leaving it difficult for companies to set their overarching standards on products. In its present form, the FDA's authority extends throughout the United States but delegates individual states to help execute their directives by assisting to bring non-compliant firms into compliance, act quickly to embargo products if FDA inspections find them inadequate and perform inspections to alleviate the burden of FDA resources ( “FDA and State Counterparts”). Demonstrating this division of power where the state government plays an active, but reduced role in the policies enacted by the federal government works to dispel any fears the Anti-federalists had that the states would become irrelevant as both levels work to run everyday operations of the country, as well as conveys the importance of having a strong centralized government to set standards and pass laws that unites the country under a common jurisdiction. George Washington once said, “It is obviously impractical in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all” (Lawless and Fox 25) and he and the rest of the Federalists were right: a strong centralized government was necessary for the new country to thrive. As demonstrated by the prior Articles of Confederation, a weak national government wouldn’t work, leaving the Anti- federalists’ arguments invalid. As federal power has grown throughout the years, the states have remained relevant just as the federalists promised and work within their own boundaries to dictate reserved powers, all while also working collectively with the national government to uphold the highest laws of the land. Works Cited

“FDA and State Counterparts.” FDA , 6 August 2021, https://www.fda.gov/federal-state-local-tribal-and- territorial-officials/domestic-mutual-reliance/fda-and-state-counterparts. Accessed 2 October 2023. Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard Logan Fox. American Politics: A Field Guide . W. W. Norton, Incorporated, 2023. Madison, James. “Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).” Bill of Rights Institute , https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/federalist-no-10. Accessed 2 October 2023. Ramos, Mitzi. “Federalists.” The Free Speech Center , 31 July 2023, https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/federalists/. Accessed 2 October 2023. “Would you have been a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist?” Bill of Rights Institute , https://billofrightsinstitute.org/would-you-have-been-a-federalist-or-an-anti-federalist. Accessed 2 October 2023.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version