Federalism

[Belsnickel]

What does it mean to you? Have you ever thought about the concept of it? Why we use it? How it works in the US compared to other countries? The various forms of it?

I'm just curious about what people on here think of and know about federalism.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-18-2016, 05:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What does it mean to you? Have you ever thought about the concept of it? Why we use it? How it works in the US compared to other countries? The various forms of it?

I'm just curious about what people on here think of and know about federalism.

Honestly I haven't really thought about it.

However I think you might get more responses if you present your thoughts on what you think federalism means to you.  Why do you want to know?  Where are you going with this?

[Belsnickel]

(10-19-2016, 01:39 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Honestly I haven't really thought about it.

However I think you might get more responses if you present your thoughts on what you think federalism means to you.  Why do you want to know?  Where are you going with this?

I was going to wait for any responses to really present my thoughts on it. It's what I do. Maybe why my threads suck.

I was really just trying to generate discussion that wasn't about the current election cycle or about the flavor fo the week news item.

[treee]

The federal government is a natural byproduct of a progression towards institutions representing increasing amounts of people.

[*michaelsean*]

I like federalism because it's a check on local and national tyranny. Also there are things better addtessed by a large central government and things better addressed by a smaller local government. Im typing on my phone so that's just a basic view.

[Belsnickel]

(10-19-2016, 09:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I like federalism because it's a check on local and national tyranny. Also there are things better addtessed by a large central government and things better addressed by a smaller local government. Im typing on my phone so that's just a basic view.

I get that. I plan on going lenghty tomorrow on a real keyboard.

[xxlt]

(10-18-2016, 05:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What does it mean to you? Have you ever thought about the concept of it? Why we use it? How it works in the US compared to other countries? The various forms of it?

I'm just curious about what people on here think of and know about federalism.

When I see the term I think of old white men with a paranoia beyond that of Nixon, with a xenophobia that makes Trump look like the Good Samaritan from the biblical parable. I think of people who drank all the Libertarian Kool-Aid at the party and when everyone else got pissed off at them said, "Well, these Libertarians are clearly 'libtards' too," and withdrew into an anteroom to mock them and exorcise the liberal stain that they had been exposed to. I think of people who would call George Will a communist and Obama a Kenyan. I think of people who think America's greatest days were 220 or more years ago, and I marvel at how those people get out of bed everyday and back into it at night without leaving this hell hole for greener pastures.

Now, I want you - Belsnickel - to do for the term "Federalism" what Randal did for the term "porch monkey" in Clerks 2 - bring it back, redeem it, change my perception of it.

[Belsnickel]

Federalism in its most simple description is simply the division of power between local, regional/state, and nation states. What I always get a kick out of is how people like to think of federalism. We were certainly all taught in our civics classes that federalism looks like this nice little layer cakes where each level has their responsibilities. But it's a lot messier than that in reality. It's one of the key components of our country's structure, but it is very misunderstood.

For years we went along with the idea of dual federalism, really up until about a century ago, where national and state had their own responsibilities and never the two shall meet. And then it started getting messy, to the point where today it is hard to tell where the lines are drawn in which areas. A lot of this has to do with the ease with which things cross state boundaries today causing need for coordination. Today, I see federalism more representative of the cooperation between the levels rather than a dividing line between them.

[xxlt]

(10-20-2016, 10:04 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Federalism in its most simple description is simply the division of power between local, regional/state, and nation states. What I always get a kick out of is how people like to think of federalism. We were certainly all taught in our civics classes that federalism looks like this nice little layer cakes where each level has their responsibilities. But it's a lot messier than that in reality. It's one of the key components of our country's structure, but it is very misunderstood.

For years we went along with the idea of dual federalism, really up until about a century ago, where national and state had their own responsibilities and never the two shall meet. And then it started getting messy, to the point where today it is hard to tell where the lines are drawn in which areas. A lot of this has to do with the ease with which things cross state boundaries today causing need for coordination. Today, I see federalism more representative of the cooperation between the levels rather than a dividing line between them.

Well, it seems those embracing the term these days, while often simple, fail to understand this simple meaning.

[fredtoast]

The division of powers between the State and fedral governments was much more important 200 years ago when there was a huge difference between the economies and even the religious beliefs of the different states.

Now every state pretty much has the same issues as every other state.

[BmorePat87]

A system of government less relevant today than it was in 1787, but one that has definitely defined the US. It was the right response to the failures of the Articles of Confederation and a great balance between Madison, Hamilton, and their peers and those like Jefferson who opposed a strong central government. Certainly necessary to ensure we never had an autocracy.

Without it, I don't think our state identities would be as strong today as they are. In 1787, we were Marylanders, and Virginians, and New Yorkers loosely bonded together by a weak central government. We were truly united states (in the true definition of the word), not one state as we are today. Today we are Americans who also take pride in the state or region we hail from.

[Belsnickel]

(10-21-2016, 02:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A system of government less relevant today than it was in 1787, but one that has definitely defined the US. It was the right response to the failures of the Articles of Confederation and a great balance between Madison, Hamilton, and their peers and those like Jefferson who opposed a strong central government. Certainly necessary to ensure we never had an autocracy.

Without it, I don't think our state identities would be as strong today as they are. In 1787, we were Marylanders, and Virginians, and New Yorkers loosely bonded together by a weak central government. We were truly united states (in the true definition of the word), not one state as we are today. Today we are Americans who also take pride in the state or region we hail from.

You touch on something that I think a lot of people fail to realize, and that is that the Constitution is not intended to solve our problems in this modern age, it was intended to fix the problems with the Articles of Confederation. It's something I think a lot of people would do well to keep in mind when we discuss issues of the Constitution.

[Dill]

(10-21-2016, 02:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You touch on something that I think a lot of people fail to realize, and that is that the Constitution is not intended to solve our problems in this modern age, it was intended to fix the problems with the Articles of Confederation. It's something I think a lot of people would do well to keep in mind when we discuss issues of the Constitution.

It continues to work pretty well though, and it was intended to hold beyond 1791. That was the hope.

Conditions are so very different now days, given the size of the county, it's tight economic/technological integration with the rest of the world, and the complexity of everything from government to the international market to healthcare to asymmetrical warfare in foreign lands.