The United States government applies the federalist system of governance. This method involves two or more entities sharing control over the same geographical area. Every individual in the U.S. is subject to the laws of the federal government, state, county, and city. The hallmark of the federal government is that power is shared between the national government and other units of government. To contextualize the U.S. system, power is divided between the federal government and the state and local governments. Initially, the article of confederation outlined that the United States existed as a confederation where each state operated independently from each other. Because federalism involves the separation of authority and responsibility among different forms of government, the interplay that results leads to a complicated policy process. This is because as much as the U.S. constitution has provided for certain powers to the national government, the states have their constitution that also highlights state level responsibilities. The discussion will analyze how federalism complicates two areas of the U.S. policy specifically in election and welfare.
Before the 20 th century, the States Constitution provided for the power to determine electoral districts, voter qualifications, mobilizing voters and campaign financing. The laws governing these provisions were well rooted during this century. These provisions have however ceased to apply with the impact of the 20 th century constitutional amendments. The amendments have since extended the electorate, federal statutes and judicial decisions to govern apportionment and voting rights. Federal supervision has been extended to matters such as ward-based and large elections in the local governments hence jeopardizing the powers conferred on the local authorities.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The federal government in many occasions has struggled to find compliance with the federal election statutes. This can be explained using two conditions. First, all the statutes make the states liable for none compliance. Secondly, many election administration responsibilities of the state have been delegated to the local governments. Wlezien and Soroka (2011) said that this scenario leads to what is known as liability mismatch where the federal electoral statutes are forced to hold the states responsible for duty they have already delegated to the local governments. The states, on the other hand, have tried to utilize this mismatch to evade responsibility for compliance with the federal election statutes. However, the states have failed in this regards.
There have also been cases of a power struggle between the federal and the state governments since the constitutional convention. The American constitution has since contradicted itself regarding the same powers of the two forms of government. Article four, second paragraph outlines that federal laws and statutes are superior to the state laws and should, therefore, act in precedence. This is known as the Supremacy Clause. On the other hand, the tenth amendment defends the residual powers of the state. The Supreme Court has since delved on this matter over decades, attempting to differentiate the extensions and the limits of both the federal and the state governments. In the U.S. history, matters to do with federalism have been at the center of presidential elections. For instance, in 1996, Bob Dole a presidential candidate campaigned with the 10 th amendment in his pocket and the Republican members referred to the states' rights explicitly 49 times as asserted by Wlezien and Soroka (2011).
Concerning the complications that have marred the welfare policy, a good example involves a grant program known as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The funding for this program is provided for by the federal government. The specificity and the distribution, however, are managed by the local government. This complicates the issue because not a single form of government is mandated with the task of fully providing and implementing the program hence leading to cases of conflict.
Secondly, the policies on gun control have been a contentious issue that has related to conflicts between the federal and the state governments. The federal government advocates for a national pressure for anti-gun laws while the state governments are for the pro-gun values. The lack of uniformity with regards to such laws can lead to legal implications and disorderliness in the American society.
In my opinion, matters relating to election policies should be left to the federal government for various reasons. First, the federal government is better equipped to handle election matters than state or local governments considering that it has a wider capacity and funds to conduct and regulate such a complex process. Secondly, since the election is a democratic process that should reflect the will of the American people, it should be uniformly carried out across all the states. This can only be achieved when there is a single source of authority, and in this case, it should be the federal government. On the other hand, welfare matters should be delegated to each state and respective local government because they have the capacity to deal with them. Although most welfare issues are important to the American citizen, they can be managed with minimal intervention from the main government.
To conclude, federalism is a form of government that involves devolving key government functions to state and local governments. It has worked in the United States for very many years since the abolishment of the Article of Confederation. However, due to lack of constitutional clarity, there have been some complications that have arisen from overlapping of roles hence leading to conflicts. Such complications have affected various sectors of policy and governance such election and welfare. The hope is that the Congress will participate in the future review the constitution to ensure flexibility is guaranteed.
References
Wlezien, C., & Soroka, S. N. (2011). Federalism and public responsiveness to policy. Publius: the journal of federalism , 41 (1), 31-52.
