Federal Government Pros And Cons

The Framers of the United States Constitution ultimately decided to give more power to the Federal government rather than the state governments for many reasons. There were many problems with the articles that caused instability in the government, and even a rebellion. Then there’s the Federal government who lacked powers to do anything much because the people were too scared to make the Federal government strong. Lastly, there was the State government who had either too much power or they had power that the Federal government should have. There were a lot of problems with the Articles that needed to be addressed , most of which were addressed.

The issue of campaign financing was argued again more recently in the Supreme Court case, Citizens United v FEC. In this case the Citizens United conservative non-profit argued that an ad for the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of George Bush and therefore the commercial was a campaigning ad funded by an outside group within sixty days of the general election. Citizens United argued the ad was illegal according to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) passed in 2002 that stated no electioneering committee could fund an ad 60 days before an election. Citizens United believed Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of Bush’s response to 9/11 and therefore was an ad for the opposing candidate Al Gore. The Supreme Court decided that if a company wants to use their money to campaign, since money is an expression of speech, there cannot be any law limiting when you can express your views politically. The court determined that the portions of FECA and BCRA related to restrictions on corporate and labor union spending was unconstitutional as it prohibited free speech. Citizens United reaffirmed the president set by Buckley vs. Valeo that money is

Federalism is a fervently debated idea in which two parties, the Federalists, and the Anti-Federalists, argue whether or not the Constitution should be ratified. The main writers of the Federalists Papers include three Founding Fathers by the names of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. The Federalists wrote of the need for a strong central government and a constitution, however, the Anti-Federalists sought for a guarantee of freedom with a Bill of Rights. The Constitution required a Bill of Rights in order to limit the large authoritative power of central government and to protect the voice of the common man from oppression. Federalist Paper Number 84, written, by Alexander Hamilton, focused on the concept of a Constitution and the containment of a Bill

Democracy in the United States: A comprehensive look at the Pros and Cons of a Federalist Society and Individual Freedoms.

In late eighteenth-century America, the ideal form of government was widely contested. When the American colonies were under British rule, they were subject to the almost-tyrannical British government, in which they were not fully represented. After the colonies achieved independence, two main political factions emerged: the Republicans and the Federalists. The Republicans, scarred by the overbearing British government, advocated for a weak federal government with individual state governments, which prevented the concentration of power in a single party and promoted a form of more direct representation. However, this system proved to be ineffective, for the federal government’s lack of power was dangerous and inefficient. The Federalists, on the other hand, supported a strong federal government. Cognizant of the negative implications of local state governments, the Federalists published a series of essays during 1787 and 1788 that supported the stronger national government that resulted from the Constitutional Convention. In “Federalist no. 51”, James Madison, a key component of the Federalist movement, described the role of government and its relationship with the people. He wrote,

“All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law” This quote from Theodore Roosevelt illustrates how corporate money can be disastrous when involved in election cycles. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that companies and Super PAC’s could donate unlimited amount of money to support candidates. The Citizens United ruling has caused increased political corruption in the United States by giving candidates the money they need to win an election while changing policies that would be beneficial to the company.

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission allowed for corporations and capitalist enterprises to be treated as individuals during an election period. This ruling allows corporations to spend or give an unlimited amount of money in contributions to their party or candidate of choice in any given election. With the loss of corporate financial regulations, our entire political system runs the risk of being corrupted by corporations whose sole objective is to satisfy its share-holders. This ruling affects all Americans their "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." President Barack Obama had this to say about the ruling:

One main issue raised by presidential hopefuls revolves around campaign money received by candidates, donated by multi-million dollar corporations. Although it remains illegal for these corporations to directly donate large sums of money to political campaigns and political parties, the fear that political and judicial figures in the American political systems are being bought out by these affluent corporations still worries an inordinate amount of people in the United States. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC whether these wealthy companies had the constitutional right to air advertisements they paid for using company expenditures. Similar to Supreme Court cases within the past half-century, the case suggests that

The case “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” was to regulate the spendings of candidates campaign, but it failed to succeed. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. (Bentley, 2017) The case was ruled in favor of big business donating private funds to campaigns. They argued because the first amendment protects the right to speak of many corporations and unions, whether or not people see them as human, therefore the are aloud to donate money to a candidate. (Bentley, 2017) In the academic journal written by Bentley, he States the Court majority (Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) argued, " although government has the authority to prevent corruption or “the appearance of corruption,” it has no place in determining whether large political expenditures are either of those things, so it may not impose spending limits on that basis." This meaning the government cannot enforce spending limits on private donors due to the government not being able to identify the big businesses as "corrupted". Since the government cannot label an organization as corrupt or unjust, therefore the donor can continue to assist the candidate. The main problem is the United States of America seems to avoid this. There is a clear problem with Citizens United being able to continue donating money to candidates without giving them so much power. This can be stopped through a constitutional amendment to strip away the corporations of their rights. (Bentley, 2017) By doing this, there will be a very successful campaign for future candidates due to there being an equal amount of money being distributed to them

The Supreme Court years ago defined monetary campaign contributions as a form of speech and allowed them to be limited because of fears that corporate money corrupts elections. (Buckley v. Valeo, 1976) The ruling upheld limits on contributions to individual candidates and on contributions to multiple candidates by persons or groups.

The increasingly popular organization, Citizens United, is focused on circumscribing government in order to decentralize power and place it in the hands of the people (“Who-We-Are”). Their firm beliefs are rooted in the ideas that the founding fathers had for this country based on values such as common sense, good will, and honesty (“Who-We-Are). Citizens United Productions, or (CUP) is an award-winning documentary production crew run by Citizens United with the intention of revealing the truth about particular candidates, which often tend to reveal damaging information about said candidate. (“Who-We-Are”). Recently, Citizens

1. In 2010, the case “Citizens United Vs. FEC was brought to the attention of the

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a 2010 Supreme Court case concerning the regulation of campaign contributions by corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations. The case is known for its holding that campaign spending by such groups is protected under the First Amendment as a form of free speech.

So the constitution was made to give we the people, basic rights to all citizens to create a good government. After it was made the delegates decided to make the BILL OF RIGHTS,EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES, ensuring that no single branch would have to much power. So why do we need the constitution when we get punished even after using our amendments to fall back on? For example;

Citizens United is a conservative non-profit group that sought to challenge Michael Moore’s movie Ferienheit 9/11 through section 203 of the McCain-Feingold Act. Citizens United called into question Moore’s movie citing the motive behind the film was to advocate the defeat of President Bush and that it was