States have always been sensitive about the amount of power they have; the federal government has always had to step carefully around the demands of the states. This has been true since the beginning of the United States. But both believe that they should have the most power when it comes to certain things. Individual states have different values and as such tend to implement different laws about certain topics; such states want their state laws to reflect these individual values instead of a blanket law from the federal government. States should have less power compared to the federal government when implementing laws dealing with topics such as the legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, and abortion. The federal government should be in …show more content…
A previously stated with medical marijuana and marriage equality, each state has individual views on abortion depending on their location and history. Such as, the South tends to have more conservative views and be Pro-Life while Northeasters tend to be more liberal and Pro-Choice. The federal government has had “no challenge to the federal law against partial-birth abortion on this ground ever went to the Supreme Court” (Ponnuru 2015). The federal government has already declared abortion legal through the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973. “Roe v. Wade (1973)… ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother” (The federal government should have the power because it is unconstitutional for certain citizens of the United States to have more rights than other citizens just because of state lived in. In conclusion, the federal state should definitely have the power to make decisions on marijuana, abortion, and gay marriage. These are all things that fall under the umbrella of state law at the moment, but that should be changed. The varying states’ interests and laws keep peoples’ full rights out of their hands. In order to keep the United States’ promise of equal rights and protections under the law, the U.S. needs to take control of these three controversial
They should worry more about our population as a whole instead of all the different laws the different states have. The federal should work more on the relationship with other country and protecting the people in the US. I think if the US would do this the states would have a better relationship and our relationship with other countries could be better. Next people wouldn't have as much bad things to say about and protest about the federal government. If we did this I believe that our country as a whole would be
On one hand, the state government deals with smaller, more private situations, such as establishing schools, holding elections, and setting up local governments. On the other hand, the federal government deals with bigger issues, such as declaring war, making immigration laws, and regulating trade. Even though both governments have
The delegation of powers between the state and federal governments of the United States of America is a country old conflict, a subject of debate to this day. Currently, state legislations have the ability to ratify amendments, manage public health and safety, make and enforce laws, make taxes, borrow money, supervise trade in the state, and whatever other laws are not reserved for the federal government or prohibited by the Constitution. However, limiting the powers of state governments is not unheard of. While this action would result in a variety of pros and cons, ultimately the division of power between the national and state governments should remain untouched. As previously mentioned, limiting the powers of state governments would not be without its pros.
In conclusion, state law and federal law are very similar as, they are each meant to dictate a measure of safety for the citizens of the United States of America. According to the United States Constitution federal law, which is dictated, allows the federal government the power to make laws for the people and for the country as a whole. State laws are meant to allow each state to be allowed to govern them and handle the issues within their states. This power was given to them from the Bill of Rights that was also outlined in the Constitution (FindLaw, 2012).
U.S. Supreme Court stands firm on the idea of restricting a woman 's right to an abortion according to the individual state. Forty-three states ban abortions after a certain time period in pregnancy. Nineteen of those states prohibits abortions at fetal viability, while three states ban the procedure in the third
“The Tenth Amendment aims to reserve powers to the states”. This is what gives states the right to make their own laws, as long as they are taking the other states into consideration. I think that federal officials should exercise greater power to require more uniform policies in the states. For example, no matter where you commit a crime, the punishment should be enforced through all of the states and not just one.
When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they wrote the document with a set of strict ideals in mind to protect the American people from the government expanding its power. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution in ways that have expanded the powers of Congress, making them most responsible for the growth of federal power. In the Constitution, the Commerce clause was created to regulate interstate commerce, but after the Supreme Court ruled on cases the interpretation changed and the federal government can now regulate commercial activities including minimum wage and labor. The Court broadened the “Necessary and Proper” clause when it ruled that Congress can establish a federal bank. Finally, the Court reinterpreted the meaning of the First Amendment so as to eliminate voluntary prayer in public or in schools. These are not the only illustrations of the Supreme Court expanding federal power, but by examining these three examples, expansion of federal power is shown.
Over the years State powers has changed. The States have gained less power relative to the Federal government. Originally the States were the sole governing power through the Articles of the Confederation due to the fear of the development of a monarchy that the U.S. had fought so hard to rid themselves of. Thus gave creation a new form of government through the constitution which fundamentally began the shift of power from state to federal. Next, though significant historical events such as the New Deal and Civil Rights we will see the Federal government infringement on State power. Lastly, we will see how this constant struggle has continued to present day. First, let’s discuss how the constitution transferred State power to Federal power.
Federalism is defined in our book as: “the relationship between the centralized national government and the individual state governments” (Berman and Murphy 92). Federalism is a very important government system that is frequently discussed and argued, even today. The topic of federalism has become a topic of argument because many people believe the federal government should have more power, and yet some other people believe the states should have most of the power. One of the ways that federalism is in our government is in our Congress, and indirectly through Congress to the difference in laws between the states. We can look at all the different speed limits in all of the individual states; they are not all the same. This is because the residents of any certain state and the representatives of that state can choose whatever they deem fit to set as limits. Another
There is a disease running rampant on the streets of Washington DC. It is a disease that cripples the economy, destroys jobs and leaves Americans living on the streets. Inordinate spending perpetuates the sickness and corrupt politicians keep the cure at bay. Federal expansion is ruining the lives of American citizens and creating a society of impecunious and pusillanimous citizens, unable and unwilling to speak out against the higher power which controls every aspect of their lives. “Where are our (sic) Men of abilities? Why do they not come forth to save their Country?” George Washington once inquired to his fellow man, now, many Americans may find themselves asking this same question as the country continues its spiral downwards
By the 1960’s, states began to reconsider the legalization of abortion in response to the high rate of hospital admissions resulting from illegal abortions and a change in public opinion (“Abortion in Law, History, and Religion”). By the early 1970’s, 17 states had altered their abortion laws towards liberalization (“Abortion in Law, History, and Religion”). In 1973, the Supreme Court declared in Roe vs. Wade that most existing state laws were unconstitutional. The case ruled out any legislative interference in the first trimester of pregnancy and put limits on what restrictions could be passed on abortions in later stages of pregnancy (Sauer).
One of the issues where federalism comes into play is with the “graduated driver’s license” law. While I do think this law is a good idea, I do not think the federal government should impose this law or any law on the states. Let’s hypothetically say Wyoming didn’t have a “graduated driver’s license” law. Instead of the Federal Government requiring states to implement such a law, I feel that legislators in Wyoming should decide for their state because I believe Wyoming legislators know their people and state far better then people in Washington, DC.
The relationship between the Federal government and the states is well stable. The Federal government has powers given by the Constitution as well powers or privileges are given to the states which promotes a balance between the two so that our country is not ruled under one specific party or group. The question now is that, are the states rights more than well protected in the current constitution and the political practice.
And don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the federal government is perfect – after all look at cases like Bush’s executive order allowing for eavesdropping on United States Citizens – this case takes away our privacy and is forcibly implemented by the state government. However, this same notion applies to our state government. The State Government cannot always be right, but its in moments of liberation and rights expansions that we often find ourselves on the right(s) side of
Throughout the years 1877-1981, minority groups employed activism in a variety of guises in the struggle to achieve civil rights. While leading activists could draw on international events to strengthen their cause and enjoyed greater success as the campaign persisted, it ultimately fell to the government to make advances: activists needed a sympathetic president and government to legally push through change, thus the progression of civil rights was arguably dictated more by the current political situation than by the work of activists. The influence of the federal government is further seen by the fact that it both hindered and accomplished change throughout this period.