The separation of power and federalism concepts is distinct. However, related political organization principles are embedded deeply within the American governmental experience and theory (Cameron & Falleti, 2005). Most people often confuse them. The confusion comes about since both concepts include dividing or separating administrative powers between different political organs to make the government responsive to its citizen's needs. Additionally, it is to keep the government from becoming a tyranny (Cameron & Falleti, 2005). Variations in policy control and party organization, especially during Bush administration, restates David Walker’s valuation that during the quarter century that has past, American federalism is more nationalized (Krane and Koenig, 2005).
As a political issue, federalism was noticeably absent during the presidential contest in 2004. Unlike many preceding campaigns, the candidates did not mention most of the challenges besetting localities and states. The fight against international terrorism including the shifting situation in Iraq molded the election during that time. The nation made progress on homeland security (Krane and Koenig, 2005). However, intergovernmental disputes over federal allowances continued persistently. Federal-state disputes were widespread in different policy areas, including healthcare, education, and environmental protection (Krane and Koenig, 2005).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, in truth, the Constitution does not adhere to the division of powers rigorously, since the three arms of a government including the courts, Congress, and the president, have an overlap within their constitutionally designated functions. Hence, even though Congress is entrusted with legislation, the president must affix his signature before a bill becomes law. Additionally, the president could veto the legislation, which a two-thirds vote of the Senate and House can override.
Likewise, the courts have the power of judicial review, where they can declare executive acts or laws to surpass the support of the Constitution null and void (Cameron & Falleti, 2005). Additionally, Congress can impeach and try judicial and executive branch officials for misbehavior. If the Congress finds them guilty, they are dismissed from the office. The cabinet or judiciary presidential appointments needs a majority vote within the Senate for approval. In addition to that, treaties that the president negotiates require a vote of two-thirds Senate majority. Therefore, these and other terms make the famed "checks and balances" in the Constitution that are supposed to prevent the application of arbitrary authority by every branch (Cameron & Falleti, 2005).
References
Cameron, M., & Falleti, T. (2005). Federalism and the Subnational Separation of Powers. Publius: The Journal Of Federalism , 35 (2), 245-271.
Krane, D., and Koenig, H. (2005). The State of American Federalism, 2004: Is Federalism Still a Core Value?
