...A Strong Central Government Throughout the history of American politics, there has been a power struggle between states' rights versus federal rights. Some citizens feel as if the state and local government should have more power while others feel that the federal government should dictate most issues. I believe that state, local, and federal governments each have a role. I believe that Washington should have greater power to dictate national policy, but I do not think that will happen. Throughout history there has been a battle of the states' rights versus federal rights. Our federal system is designed to allow states to experiment with different policies. This means that new social or economic policies can be tested for those states who may want the new policy. According to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, "Powers are not delegated to the federal government...and are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people (Harrison, 2010). The Constitution has set a balance between state rights and federal powers; however, the states are limited because no state law is superior to federal law (The Question Of). For example, California allows the use of medicinal marijuana, but it is against federal law. In order to obtain ratification of the Constitution, Federalist agreed to the Bill of rights. The Bill of Rights limited federal government powers and any other powers were given to the state. The composition of the Supreme...
Words: 792 - Pages: 4
...Under Which Ideology Does a Strong Central Government Play a More Central Role? Neoliberalism or Socialism By Vicente Leong Professor Andrae M. Marak GVPT100 To understand which ideology does a strong central government play a more central role, one must understand the ideologies of neoliberal and socialist. This also help understand which government play a more central role, because government run their nation-state base on certain ideology. Neoliberal ideas at it core is a belief that believe the government should have minimum interference. In the free market, the flow of goods, service and capital should face minimum barriers. It’s base on four principles: * Economic growth is paramount: corporations and their agents need to be free to pursue whatever gives them an economic advantage, and in consequence, internal and global market must be free to operate with little government constraint or regulation. * Free trade benefit all nations - rich or poor - because every nation has a comparative advantage. * Government spending creates inefficiency and waste: although most neoliberal agree that not all public expenditure is wasteful, many argue that it can be reduced * in the distribution of economic goods, individual responsibility replaces the concepts of public goods and community. The core value of neoliberal approaches are: capital account liberalization, trade liberalization domestic liberalization and privatization. (Neo-Liberal Ideas. n.d.) Socialist is...
Words: 849 - Pages: 4
...These empires, Imperial Rome from 31 B.C.E.-476 C.E. and Han China from 206 B.C.E.-220 C.E., had many similarities, but they also had many differences. The techniques of imperial administration in both Han China and Imperial Rome contained strong central governments. In contrast, after the downfall of these Empires, Han China was able to rebuild their imperial model by their set conduct of life, while Rome was never able to completely reunify because of weak political organization through their religion. The Roman Empire and Han China both had strong central governments. Rulers in both empires secured power by taking over former rulers and their...
Words: 703 - Pages: 3
...FEDERALISTS The federalists wanted and believed in a central government that’s slip into branches and ran by the people. They really wanted a government that was strong and for the people. The anti-federalists wanted to stay under the control of the British in a monarchy government. The federalists wanted the constitution ratified just as it was immediately. FEDERALISTS vs. ANTI-FEDERALISTS The federalists and the anti-federalists had two totally different views on hot the U.S should be governed. They both had their own ideas of what they thought would help make our county better. The federalists believed and wanted a strong federal government, an army and a central bank. With our country in mind they felt that our country should be ran by the people. Stated by the federalist no.39 “It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion of a favored class of it; otherwise handful of tyrannical nobles exercising their oppression by a delegation of their powers might aspire the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable tittle of republic.” The federalists believed in separating the government into branches so that the government could be kept under control. Also, stated by the federalists no. 51 “It is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and constituted that the members of the others.. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several...
Words: 667 - Pages: 3
...Federalism In a monarchy, the people have no say in the government, while the anti-federalists wanted to keep our government as it is. They both are most likely alike. This would cause chaos and hostility amongst the citizens of the nation. The federalists believed in a strong central government. They wanted some of the state powers for itself. Also, the supported the division of the government into three branches Anti-Federalist and Federalist The federalist were for the people and not just in favor for the ruling class. Federalists wanted a strong, central federal government, a central bank, and an army. Stated in the federalist paper in No.3 "it is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." The federalist also wanted to separate the powers of the government into different branches so that the government could be kept under control. The Anti-federalists wanted to stay with the British government. The British was a monarchy at the time. It would be a corrupt government since only the rich could have a say in the government but the poor couldn't. The united states did not approve of it. " And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper...
Words: 458 - Pages: 2
...strongly sided with the Federalists. A strong central government has been very beneficial to our country, as it has been proven. They wanted to see a change, whereas the Anti-Federalists wanted to keep the monarchy government. The federalists wanted to see a change for the better in our country. The Anti-federalists wanted to keep our government as is, wish would mean that we would basically be a monarchy. Doing this would cause hostility toward the government. The Federalists believed in a strong central government. They wanted the Constitution ratified immediately, just the way it was. They wanted some of the powers removed from the states and given to the central government. Also, the Federalists supported the division of the government into three branches. Federalists and Anti-Federalists had completely different views as to how the country should be governed. They each had ideas that would help the country, and make it better. Federalists wanted a strong, central federal government, a central bank, and an army. They were in the favor of the people and not just who ruled. In the Federalist paper no.39 it states: “It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppression by a delegation of their power, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.” The...
Words: 635 - Pages: 3
...I side with the federalists. They want to see change while the Anti-Federalists wanted to keep a monarchy government. A strong central government is extremely beneficial to our government and it has been proven. The federalists want to better our country. The Anti-Federalists would have led us into corruption. Unlike the Anti-Federalists, the federalists had valid points such as “It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it”. The Anti-Federalists wanted to keep our government as it was so it would be most like a monarchy. Federalists believed in a strong central government. They wanted some of the powers removed from the states and then given to the central governments. Also, they wanted the constitution ratified immediately. In addition, the federalists supported the three branches of government. Federalists and Anti- Federalists had very different views as to how the country should be governed. Federalists were not only in favor of who ruled, but also the people. They wanted a central bank and an army. Also, they believed in separating the powers of government into different branches so that the government was also kept under control. It states in Federalist paper no. 59 “It is evident that each department should have a will of its own and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the...
Words: 347 - Pages: 2
...many components and ideas have been amended and argued as allowed by “Article Five” of the U.S. Constitution. When writing and discussing the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention, many of the authors and scholars disagreed on the ratification of the Constitution whilst others favored the ratification of the famous document. Some claimed that liberty will be jeopardized and a tyrannical government may result, as stated in document two. Whilst others claimed that the Constitution was the solution to the political and economic struggles of the current government as stated in document one. The anti-federalists, led by Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson favored a weaker central government; whilst the federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton favored a strong central government. Overall, the major arguments of the convention can be categorized into two groups, the ones who favored the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and those who didn’t. To continue, the scholars who favored the ratification of...
Words: 694 - Pages: 3
...parties started within the congressional and executive branches of government during George Washington’s presidency. The belief of a strong central government was the core political philosophy of the Federalist Party. The Federalists wanted a fiscally sound and nationalistic government. Most Federalists were bankers and businessmen who promoted government engagement in a national economy and supported the creation of a strong central bank. The Federalist Party endorsed the Alien and Sedition Acts which increased the requirements for citizenship,...
Words: 621 - Pages: 3
...After the Revolutionary War ending in 1783, the United States needed a framework for their government. The Articles of Confederation had already been established in 1781, however, the debate over the necessity of a Constitution was underway. The Constitutional Convention, beginning in 1781 in Philadelphia included delegates from 12 of the 13 states. During the convention, the delegates discussed issues to be resolved in their proposed Constitution. Public debates outside of the convention also emerged where the common people debated over the Constitution as well. In the late 1780s, following the Constitutional Convention, two groups, the Federalists and Anti-federalists, debated over the necessity and potential dangers of the proposed Constitution....
Words: 1258 - Pages: 6
...Federalists wanted and believed in a strong, central government. The Federalists consisted of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. On the other side, there were opponents of the Constitution (the Anti-Federalists). The Anti-Federalists thought the Constitution would give the government too much power and control; there was no Bill of Rights to protect the people and their rights from...
Words: 1199 - Pages: 5
...Patriot governments in the colonies then unanimously empowered their delegates to Congress to declare independence. In 1776, Congress created an independent nation, the United States of America. With large-scale military and financial support from France and military leadership by General George Washington, the American Patriots won the Revolutionary War. The peace treaty of 1783 gave the new nation the land east of the Mississippi River (except Florida and Canada). The central government established by the Articles of Confederation proved ineffectual at providing stability, as it had no authority to collect taxes and had no executive officer. Congress called a convention to meet secretly in Philadelphia in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation. It wrote a a new Constitution, which was adopted in 1789. In 1791, a Bill of Rights was added to guarantee inalienable rights. With Washington as the Union's first president and Alexander Hamilton his chief political and financial adviser, a strong central government was created. When Thomas Jefferson became president he purchased the Louisiana Territory from France, doubling the size of the US. A second and last war with Britain was fought in 1812. All thirteen colonies united in a Congress that called on the colonies to write new state constitutions. After armed conflict began in Massachusetts, Patriots drove the royal officials out of every colony and assembled in mass meetings and conventions. Those Patriot governments in the...
Words: 685 - Pages: 3
...These issues primarily revolved around the government because the government is what controlled everything else. The Declaration of Independence was written in response to the awful ways in which the colonists were being treated by the British, the Articles of Confederation were created to eliminate the British rule that dreadfully governed the colonies, and the United States Constitution was created to organize a strong central government, something which the Articles of Confederation failed to do. With the passing of the Tea Act by...
Words: 1252 - Pages: 6
...time of | | | |the magna carta were suffering. | |Mayflower Compact |The mayflower compact served as the document needed to keep the|Much like the magna carta, the mayflower compact was put into place to protect | | |Puritans and Pilgrims from ripping each other’s throats out |people from hurting each other or themselves. It had major influence on the | | |upon the pilgrim’s arrival at Plymouth. It was the first |constitution as it gave the government hope that people can...
Words: 1671 - Pages: 7
...two arguments my character, Edward Randolph, you will be able to tell if he supported the ratification of the Constitution. Edward Randolph was born on hot summer day in August 21, 1753 in Williamsburg, Virginia. Randolph was a Virginia planter and slave holder. He attended the College of William and Mary and just like his father, he wanted to pursue a career in law. Edward Randolph was a representative of the Virginia convention. In 1779, Edward Randolph inaugurated his term as Attorney General of Virginia. Edward served as the Governor of Virginia from 1786 to 1788. Edward Randolph later represented the Annapolis Convention and the Constitutional Convention. Equality was one of Edward Randolph’s concerns. He was injurious to a central authority, for that reason the Declaration of Independence was and essential document...
Words: 786 - Pages: 4
