I am pleased to present a guest post by Stephanie Barr of Rocket Scientist. This is something you that will help your understanding of our American government, and how it came to be.
---------
Relax Max has asked me to write a blog on what federalism is. In
concept, this is simple. Federal, as define by Merriam Webster
[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/federal] defines it as a
compact where political units "surrender their individual sovereignty to
a central authority but retain limited residuary powers of government"
and several variations on that theme. Wikipedia
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation] also has a well-defined
description of what a federation is.
In many ways, it's easier to describe what a federation is not. It is
not a single unit of government, such as a unitary state, with districts
and towns governed and rule by that central government, just as layers
of a hierarchy. In this case, in a federation, there IS a central
authority, but the governments at the state and county and city level
are all independently operated and elected, rather than run and
appointed at the central level.
The relative advantage for a federal government relative to a unitary
state is that people in an actual geographic area get to have more
direct say in how their part of the country is run, rather than have
everything, down to the smallest iota, defined at a national level and
imposed down. For example, hurricane building codes for Florida and the
Texas Gulf Coast aren't imposed on Iowa or even west Texas, where they
aren't necessary and would impose unreasonable burdens on developers.
A relative disadvantage for a federal government relative to a unitary
state is that the law tends to be convoluted and complex and standards
from even adjacent districts can vary widely. This makes law
professionals essential to do even simple tasks, as they sift through
the various local, state and federal statutes and means that government
services like police or education or social services, can vary widely
depending on where you live. It also allows for distinct inequality
depending on the relative wealth of some areas and some populations over
others.
A confederation, on the other hand, often has the same structure, but
more of the "central" authority is at the discretion of the states.
States can leave if they choose. Decisions and changes in the central
government are often dependent on the voting/consensus/even unanimity of the sovereign states.
The advantage of a federation over a confederation is that the central
government can function more expeditiously and simply. The central
government in a confederacy's central government can readily become like
a paritioner, starved of power except in name, begging and pandering for
power to do ANYTHING. Depending on the distribution of power, the
advantages of the actual pact between "states" can be worn away or lost.
The advantage is that those in a geographical area have nearly complete
control over their own laws and requirements, their taxes, social
services, etc. Adverse effects in a different state may have minimal
impact on their own.
The differences, actually between a confederacy and a federation, are
largely a matter of degree. Often a confederacy has a shared defense,
but usually has individual armies as well. Confederacies can have
individual monetary systems or share monetary systems, ditto for
languages.
So, why give up sovereignty for a federation?
Defense is more effective in a federation (though there's always the
possibility of war that serves on certain areas or interests). A
uniform set of services can exist to serve all (i.e. post office) and
monetary system can greatly facilitate economic interaction.
In our federation (US), we have a centralized army/navy/defense and the
state governments do not directly control the federal government but
rather individuals from different geographical are elected to serve the
interests of their constituents in the central government. Single
monetary system, certain independent services. But the key, in my
opinion, is the Bill of Rights, where certain key "rights" were defined
that no other agency could undo, including the states. That, in my
opinion, is what set the original federation apart from the different
examples that came before and influenced our constitution.
Note that this is flavored with my own view, so you are free to disagree
with aspects and opinions expressed here.
6 comments:
That oughta learn ya, RM. You pull in a guest blogger and the comments are lousy with those crickets that tell you nobody's home. I feel like Daffy to your Bugs.
Oh well. I never did aim to be popular.
(Ack! I'm reverting to Texas drawl!)
I enjoyed your post, and I learned from it. Others often read and ponder without necessarily commenting. I find that especially true of posts which present new material or which call for someone to take a stand. The latter is not true in this case, but often I have found that some of my most well-thought-out posts (or so I thought) that were important to me, received few if any comments. I love comments, but that is not why I blog. My life's goal is to clarify things, explain things, try to simplify the complex as much as I can. You have done that with this post, and I am grateful.
Now... on to where you are very wrong. Ha! :)
I say... A federation is ALWAYS accountable to its member-states. Always. Our federal government only has powers given to it by the states, and none of those powers has to be permanent. The number of amendments to the constitution testifies to the number of times the states have redirected the federal government; only if enough states want something, or want something changed (through ratification) does the federal government's powers get increased or decreased, or an order for a change in course be issued to the federal government.
Anything can change. The Bill of Rights is not something given to us by the federal government. Rather it is a list of restrictions on that federal government imposed by the member states on behalf of their citizens. And, if they choose to do so, the several states can take away those 10 amendments to the constitution. (By ratifying repeal amendments.)
"Deriving it's just powers from the consent of the governed" I think is how the Declaration of Independence words it. Or something close to that.
Frankly, I disagree with the dictionary definition you cite at the beginning of your post, for what THAT is worth. Heh. I don't disagree with YOU, but with the dictionary's definition. I mean, I don't agree that the states give up their sovereignty to the federal government. I know that sounds strange. But I believe the states have ultimate control over the federal government in that they are the ones who ratify amendments to the constitution. And, since the states agree to LET the federal government do things, it follows that the ones who hire the management team retains the real power, even if that management team is given great leeway and great independence in the everyday running of things.
As long as the states can, at any time, get together and say how MAJOR changes will occur, then they are the true sovereigns, in my opinion. The states can do this, even to the point of getting rid of their hired management team altogether.
What say you? Are the feds really the head honchos? Or do you, like me, believe that, although "governments long-established should not be changed for light and transient reasons", they still can be changed or even fired altogether if they stop meeting the needs of "management", the people.
My argument is, in a republic, power flows upwards from the bottom. Those at the top are weakest. The states are in the middle, wholly dependent upon their citizens, directly, for whatever power they have. And it is the states, in turn, who, in the end, "explain" to the federal government how things will be.
---------
As a personal observation, completely aside from your very informative post, my view is that the feds have over the years gotten too big for their britches and think just because their employers have given them great powers of making everyday decisions, they have come to mistakenly believe they are the ones with the TRUE power. I am of the mind they may need a reminder.
But of course your explanation of the purpose of having a federation, and the need for (at least temporarily) ceding or delegating great powers to the federal government in order for it to properly do it's "job" is spot on. And you clearly explained it in such a way that I learned new things. I think you are great for doing this for us. And I will feel that way even if there are NO other comments!
One of the things I would eventually like to debate with you (although hardly a new subject) is whether states have the right to leave the union.
Many people assume that we fought a civil war over that question, and therefore it is settled. But the civil war (I say) did NOT answer that question. It only showed that with enough might, you can make someone do your bidding. In this case, it meant the other club members forced others to stay in their club.
And yet I have not found in the constitution anything which legally binds states forever. I personally don't believe states SHOULD have this right to leave. At least not without the consent of the other states. But I have never found a prohibition in the constitution, nor do I believe the Civil War really settled the question. At least not the theoretical question.
This is important to me to resolve, because making states stay against their will undermines my theory that the states are the real sovereigns. Or perhaps not necessarily; if the majority of states voted and they agreed to let one state go, then they would not be giving up their ultimate say-so.
Interesting.
But my MAIN interest in the federal debate is just how much power the states really meant to give the feds, and how much have the feds simply TAKEN over the years. And, most of all, is it OK with everybody?
Thanks Stephanie this type of post is very informative to those of us who did not have much to do with American history. It is a bit mind boggling sometimes but I will persevere.
I've been thinking about this some more, and I think one of the main improvements (there were several) to the new constitution was that it made it much more difficult for the individual states to "interfere with" or "micromanage" the federal government on lesser issues. In the new constitution, the states have to actually go through the painstaking process of amending the constitution in order to "give and order to" the federal government. This means they have to have much support form other states, and it also means it takes time - time to cool off and shift priorities. The ERA amendment, unnecessary like so many other amendments both passed and failed, is the most recent example that comes to mind. During the time involved two things happened: the fires of indignation went out for the amendment, and the people moved on to other issues they thought had become more important. This was the reasoning also, I think, for having Senators appointed by the states rather than having them be directly elected by the people at large as they are today. That was a sad amendment too, one that we are still living with today.
I like the idea of having a strong management team with broad powers to get things done and the ability to make on-the-spot timely decisions. I do NOT like them not being more responsible to their stockholders or their board of directors. The states ARE that board of directors who need to be giving constant feedback to the management team with regard to the general direction the "company" needs to move in. The Senators were (and are) that board of directors (intended to be the representatives of the states and not the people directly. But, being elected by popularity rather than their ABILITY to serve their state at large, has made the present day Senate something very different than the original intent of states.
Today, a congressman is judged by what things he is able to deliver to his home district, and a Senator is judged by what things he is able to bring home to his state at large. I think the original intent of the constitutional framers was more along the lines of both of them going to Washington and telling the federal government what the people, and the states, wanted with respect to the various pressing issues of the day, and, at the same time, notify the federal government what NEW issues needed to be addressed. Is that what is happening today? I think they are still getting business taken care of for their people and their states, much of the time, but Oh! how cumbersome it has become!
I could have sworn I put in some sort of comment on this earlier.
Must be losing whats left of my mind.
Post a Comment