Dual Sovereignty Analysis

The Framers believed that “liberty would be more secure if the national government’s powers were divided into three branches—a bicameral legislature with the power to make laws, an executive with the power to enforce them, and a judiciary with the power to interpret the laws”, (Kanovitz, 2012, p. 9). The Framers of the constitution did this because of their experience with the British Parliament. For this reason they were fearful of a concentrated rule or single authority. It encouraged the Framers to develop democratic government rather than a monarchy. Dividing the rule of government into three divisions of powers allows for a system of check and balance. In this way, not one system of government has more power or influence over the other.
Ultimately, dual sovereignty recognized the separate powers of federal government and state government. This is because state governments are allowed to develop their own laws, rights, and constitution. Although the state is granted power, the sovereign state must follow and recognize the laws provided by the federal government. The doctrine of dual sovereignty protects individuals from becoming prosecuted twice, by both the state and the federal government. So if an individual’s happens to break both federal law and state law, only one sovereign jurisdiction is allowed to prosecute the
This has created debate and can be observed on the news. The most popular debate between the separate powers of state and federal government is about the new law on gay marriage. Although the Supreme Court decided that restricting marriage between one woman and one man as unconstitutional, some states have refused to abide by this law. It can be seen in areas across the south and the American mid-west. Reports from the Huffington Post found that states such as Texas have refused to marry same sex couples. In addition, “lawmakers in Louisiana and Mississippi, which also previously had bans on gay marriage, are actively resisting the ruling by delaying its implementation”, (Fang, 2015). This indicates that State and federal government continue to be at odds. Even though gay marriage is law, many states continue to fight against this law and make it difficult for these individuals to