The Pros And Cons Of The Federal Government

The U.S. government’s expansive role in public policy is caught in a swirl of conflicting cross-currents. On the one hand, popular expectations about government’s

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.

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

Texas Legislature met for the 85th time last spring since statehood. The Texas Legislature passed several laws from State budget, protecting children, schools, sanctuary cities, and many more, at the same time some laws where not passed.

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

Short Essay – Policy-making in the Federal System. The U.S. government’s expansive role in public policy is caught in a swirl of conflicting cross-currents. On the one hand, popular expectations about government’s responsibility to solve problems often exceed the capacity of state and local authorities to respond effectively. On the other hand, policies developed at the national level may not sufficiently reflect the great diversity of interests across the U.S. to be effective at the local level. Moreover, the search for effective policy is further complicated by theoretical debates about the constitutional framework of federalism, e.g., what limits on national power can be derived from the 10th Amendment?

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,

Throughout FDR’s New Deal acts, the role of the government regarding economic affairs had expanded greatly. With a previous laissez faire mindset, the Federal Government had never interfered in the economic situation of the American citizens. However, with the New Deal policies, the National Government had become involved in the competition with private businesses, greatly angering business owners (Document 1). These wealthy owners had viewed that the Government should focus its resources on fixing areas such as the South and not restrict the rights of their employees for the benefit of the government. During this time, the government had provided jobs to those in need and a steady cash flow for the American economy, however it had left the country with an astonishing six billion dollar debt (Document 3). The American nation began to feel as if the government was

The guiding principles driving public policy in America have dramatically changed since the founding, especially in terms of the proper role of government. What the Framers considered to be the appropriate power and scope of the federal government differs greatly from those who defended the New Deal. While both the Framers and the defenders of the New Deal cherished freedom, those in support of FDR’s legislation expanded the idea of freedom to include such things as the freedom from want. To implement this new idea of freedom, they required an expanded scope of the federal government, which they achieved. But neither system worked in the long run or even the short run, leaving America with a broken system in need of reform and the question

“Open ended benefit programs, funded by other people’s money” foster a ’something for nothing’ mentality, that is weakening America”, states Nicholas Eberstadt. The governments need to emphasize unemployment spending and help businesses that are failing, is driving the national debt up by the day (Clemmitt). “Government is what it spends” Allen Schick shares in Clemmitt’s article, but this statement is only factual if that government spends its money wisely.

Examples: Social Security, Medicare, much environmental protection, collecting income taxes, many military duties and FEMA

Donald Kettl presents many controversial ideas in his book The Next Government of the United States. While some ideas he provides many be disagreed upon by some he gives excellent validation for reasoning. Two ideas that I believe are well worth discussing is the Mildred paradox that correlates with the Mildred Corollary and the irresponsible governance provided by the federal government. Each of these ideas brings about aspects that should be considered by citizens when thinking of the U.S. government. Kettl’s ideas are important in considering what the government does and does not do for citizens. Consequently, some may trust and some may not trust the United States government, and Kettl is providing reasoning behind distrust.

Federalism is a system of government in where the power of the country is divided amongst the national and state governments. Each of these governments has both its advantages and disadvantages that I will be discussing in this forum. I will as well state my opinion on what I believe the American federal system gives the citizens of the nation.

The American people have come to expect that the government should take care of them. They expect the government to provide social security, regulation of food and medicines, protect consumers, and a whole bunch of other concerns and interests. The government can not provide these things without bureaucracies. People tend to consider bureaucracies as huge overgrown parts of the government, but this is rarely the case with most bureaucracies short on necessary training, funding, supplies and equipment – to carry out the huge task of serving the American people. The government is providing the most it can for Americans with the least amount of spending. The people govern in a democratic government, and if the

Americans depend on government bureaucracies to accomplish most of what we expect from government, and we are oftentimes critical of a bureaucracy’s handling of its responsibilities. Bureaucracy is essential for carrying out the tasks of government. As government bureaucracies grew in the twentieth century, new management techniques sought to promote greater efficiency. The reorganization of the government to create the Department of Homeland Security and the Bush administration’s simultaneous push to contract out jobs to private employers raises the question as to whether the government or the private sector can best manage our national security. Ironically, the criticism of the bureaucracy may be a product