The exclusive power and concurrent power contribute to the continued negotiation of the balance of power amid the two levels of administration. The central government or state uses the exclusive powers while the concurrent powers are excessed by the central government and the states. The division of power between the central government and the state is influenced by the need to equally and fairly represent all the citizens from different states and regardless of the state population in the Federal government. This paper discusses the balance of power between the federal government and the individual states.
The federal government is responsible for federal monetary policies, control mail, declare war or pursue international goals. This power stands for good: for instance, if a state can declare war on another state, it can make money off the other state dollar. Therefore, the restrictive power of the central government helps the country work coherently. On the other hand, the state has a lot of power. For instance, they conduct all the elections, including the presidential election, and must agree with the constitutional amendment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Unless state laws challenge the federal law, state governments can approve trade strategies, tax assessments, medical services, education, and any other issues within the states. Remarkably, taxation, making enforcement laws, chartering banks, and acquiring loans are activities that are exercised by both the central government and the states (Slagle et al., 2017). The division between state power and national power is clear. States are set within their jurisdiction, and the central government deals with social and global issues.
However, since the civil war in the 1960s, the power of the central government has masked and has established itself with the powers of the state. For instance, in the midst of an emergency such as the Great Depression, the state government was supported by the federal government to offer much-needed guidance in zones that are regularly monitored at the state level. Although the overall model is to increase central power, the states have been withdrawn. For example, in the US v Lopez case of 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that the government had surpassed its limits by guaranteeing a position in which firearms could be banned from school buildings under trade clauses (Brouillet, 2018). Because firearms in schools are not synonymous with interstate business, the Supreme court ruled the gun boycott unconstitutional.
One of the ways the central government can affect the states is by providing rewards, inducements, and assistance. State and surrounding governments are trying to raise central dollars, but the large sums of dollars are awarded several conditions. All central government awards must be used for explicit purposes and often include non-discriminatory agreements (stating that the transfer of assets must not be for the purpose of oppressing women, minorities, or multiple assemblies). Under certain conditions, the federal government may also accept unfunded contracts that bind administrative subsidies. For example, the National Minimum Drinking Act 1984 states that states must have a minimum drinking age of 21 in order to receive full subsidies from government parks (Somin, 2018). Not all government subsidies are scrutinized. A Square Award is a government award awarded to a state or territory for expansion purposes. Then state or environmental governments can distribute these assets at their discretion.
The balance of power amongst the federal government and the states was restructured in the Article of Confederation to ensure that both the state and the federal government excesses some degree and autonomy. The local government shares the same responsibility as the state and the federal government. However, their responsibility is often restricted by the boundaries prescribed to them by the state. The state and the federal governments have some shared responsibilities especially those that build and maintain networks of interstates.
References
Brouillet, E. (2018). 5. The Supreme Court of Canada: The Concept of Cooperative Federalism and Its Effect on the Balance of Power. In Courts in Federal Countries (pp. 135-164). University of Toronto Press.
Slagle, K., Bruskotter, J. T., Singh, A. S., & Schmidt, R. H. (2017). Attitudes toward predator control in the United States: 1995 and 2014. Journal of Mammalogy, 98(1), 7-16.
Somin, I. (2018). 14. The Supreme Court of the United States: Promoting Centralization More Than State Autonomy (pp. 440-481). University of Toronto Press.
