The Pros And Cons Of Belgian Federalism

The biggest advantage of federal system is check and balances – a political system where each branch of government have authority to keep checks on other branches and to influence the decisions of other branches; the political power is not concentrated in the hands of individuals or groups. Now, let’s see the cons of the federal system. Cons of the federal system are: prevention of the creation of a national policy, lack of accountability, and potential for corruption. “Federalism also causes confusion between the local governments and the national government as well.” (Federalism Pros and Cons List, 2015) For an example, the United State doesn’t have a single policy on issues, which often leads to the confusion. Also, power of authority can create a possible atmosphere for corruption at local and national level. For an example, if majority of the congress wants to pass a law on something and local states do not agree on it, then the local government can agree on the law to get something in return in form of money or favors!

The Anti-federalist were the people who opposed the sanction of the constitution. They were Samuel Adams and John Hancock etc. They believed that the ratification of the constitution will lead to corruption and abuse of power by the government. The suggested constitution did not benefit the people as it should and did not have an assurance of the people’s right to assembly or bear arms. Anti-federalist believed in controlling government authority, therefore with the assumption that the new ratification will be most favorable to the wealthy, it was a threat to their beliefs— meaning that the poorer citizens will not be able to exercise their liberty for fear of double standard by the elite rulers. Most Anti-federalist were farmers and lower class citizens, so we could understand why they were intimidated by the rich and powerful Federalist— who had backgrounds of educations and could have easily manipulate the system for their own gratification.

Confederation itself was an incredible display of Canadian compromise and tolerance. George Brown (1867) congratulated Canada on confederation, impressed with the Canadian's ability to compromise between two separate peoples, the French and English, who have vastly different religions, cultures, laws, and languages, something European countries like Holland and Belgium, Austria and Hungary, and Russia and Poland have been historically unable to accomplish successfully. The Constitution specifically protects important French aspects including freedom of religion, language guarantees in Quebec, and French civil law.

However federal government also has the advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of the Federal unity is that local government handles local problems also the local government and officials have to be very responsive of the people who elect them. The central government can devote more time and energy to national and international problems. They also have more opportunities for participation in making decisions that influence what is taught in the schools, also deciding where highways and government projects are to be built.

The Articles of Confederation was the first constitution of the United States. They were written during the revolutionary war to create a more unified government, and to establish what the national government could and could not do. The Articles let each state keep “sovereignty, freedom, and independence,” and created a very weak central government. For example, Congress could not regulate commerce or impose taxes. The impact that the Articles of Confederation had on federalism for the next few years was: the federal government had very few powers, and most of the authority remained in control of each individual state.

I was surprised that I actually agreed with what the Anti-federalist had to say. I found it to be more dense and harder then the federalist number ten. Once I found a good source and was able to understand what the points they are trying to make were, I found that I liked the views they stand for. I liked the idea of more representatives instead of just one for the whole nation. If each state had their own representative they would be able to better represent the interests of those people. Also they wouldn’t have to do so much damage control if each state was taking care of by their own specific representative. If each state had control over whom and what they taxed, they could better control the economy of that state. The people would feel

Federalism can be said to be the defining feature of all forms of American politics. Even as a literary characteristic feature, America was the first nation to adopt federalism as a concept. Federalism is a system of government whereby political power is divided between a national government and other smaller political constituents such as states. Federalism, although not mentioned exactly in the constitution, was supposed to be a concept that addressed the errors of the confederation (Platt, 2014). It was also supposed to be the lay the groundwork for what would be the future of America. As it was expected to be, federalism has had an impact on the American politics even as far as elections are concerned. There were some key reasons that

The main argument against ratifying the constitution by the Anti-Federalists was that they thought that the government would be created would be too powerful and they would just be paving the way for another monarchy like the one that they had just fought so hard to free themselves from in England. They also wanted to add a Bill of Rights before ratifying the constitution and not after. The Pros are that the document had stated to provide protection against the cruel and unlawful act of ruling the american colonies.Freedom of movement which is under Article IV. This section explained the security and perpetual interactions and partnership among the citizens of the emerged nation. The document created a bridge to connect the individual States

Federalists or Anti-federalists are both fair sides, and each side has an arguable amount of supporters. I am an Anti-federalist, or someone who opposes the Constitution. Moreover, we believe that the Constitution takes too much power away from the people. The Federalists on the other hand are those who support the Constitution. They link themselves with the idea of federalism, and federalism is when power is divided and shared between a central government and local governments. In addition, the Constitution gives the national government too much power, it doesn’t provide for a republican government, and in the end, it doesn't provide a Bill of Rights which is vital.

The Federalists were opposed to supporting the French, and this belief is backed up by the author’s rash description of the current state of France. France had an opportunity had freedom, but in the eyes of the author, they have squandered that chance. In the event of the violence spreading to the United States the author is optimistic that the people will band together in defense of the government, and all that the country stands for.

In 1787, the passage of the Constitution by the states were not by any means certain. There were two sides to the ratification of the Constitution: Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were against ratifying it, while the Federalists were dead set on trying to ratify the constitution. One of the major issues constantly being debated between these two parties was the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. The Federalists thought this addition was unnecessary, because they believed that the Constitution would only have limitations on the government, instead of limiting the people. While the Federalists thought the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, Anti-Federalists explained how they thought the Constitution gave

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

Anti-Federalist concerns raised during the ratification process lead to the creation of the Bill of Rights. Without everyone on his side, Madison could not ratify the constitution. So in order to gain support from the Anti-Federalists he promised them that he would enact a Bill of Rights that would eventually give them their freedom.

1) Because of differing state policies when approaching multiple languages, Belgium only gains antagonism from multiple languages while Switzerland has more unity. Belgium gives autonomy to regions based on the two differing languages they speak, which creates more difference. Switzerland has four national languages, because they are using their diversity as a unifying factor rather than a dividing one.

only benefit the rich. Unemployment is rising and the situation of the peasants and workers is not improved. Belgians are disadvantaged, they are less well represented in Parliament or important functions and pay more taxes than the Dutch. Dutch headed and commanded almost everything. They ruled