The Lingering Problem Of Dual Federalism In The United States
The Lingering Problem of Dual Federalism
Introduction
Every school child knows that the United States is a federal government. But what is a federal government? One text book defines ‘federalism’ as “Government authority shared by national and local governments.” (Wilson, Dilulio, & Bose, 2013, p. 52). Fortunately or unfortunately, the founding fathers had an imperfect understanding of what exactly federalism meant. That uncertainty allowed those with differing views to mutually support the creation of the constitution. But the differing views would plague the country leading ultimately to the Civil War.
The most persistent description of federalism in the American model is so called ‘dual federalism.’ It is a model described by Richard …show more content…
Clearly prior to the revolution, the king of England held sovereignty. This is to say all power was held by the king, less whatever powers he (or his predecessors) had delegated out or given away. Hobbes and Rousseau both agreed that sovereignty was created through a social contract whereby individuals, originally sovereign unto themselves, gave up part of their individual freedom to create the state. The ruler of the state, in whatever form, then was said to hold the sovereign power (Hobbes, 1651). But Hobbes and Rouseau disagreed on the question of what happens to this sovereignty if the ruler is over thrown. Hobbes would argue that sovereignty simply passes to the next ruler. Rousseau however felt that sovereignty would automatically devolve back to the people, who could then create a new ruler/government as they saw …show more content…
The problem was, as it had always been, how the federal government could physically assert its supremacy over states without the cooperation of state officials. The answer began in 1916 with the National Defense Act of 1916 (National Defense Act, 1916). This act provided substantial federal funding for state militia units and renamed them as the National Guard. It also allowed these units to be called up for national service, including service outside their state (National Defense Act, 1916). The National Defense Amendments of 1933 created dual service, that is to say national guardsmen were sworn into service both for their state and for the U.S. Army (National Defense Act Amendments, 1933). The President of the United States was authorized to call up the units into federal service in time of need and for an unlimited period. This is typical of federalism in the twentieth century, where states voluntarily surrender part of their rights in exchange for
Introduction
Every school child knows that the United States is a federal government. But what is a federal government? One text book defines ‘federalism’ as “Government authority shared by national and local governments.” (Wilson, Dilulio, & Bose, 2013, p. 52). Fortunately or unfortunately, the founding fathers had an imperfect understanding of what exactly federalism meant. That uncertainty allowed those with differing views to mutually support the creation of the constitution. But the differing views would plague the country leading ultimately to the Civil War.
The most persistent description of federalism in the American model is so called ‘dual federalism.’ It is a model described by Richard …show more content…
Clearly prior to the revolution, the king of England held sovereignty. This is to say all power was held by the king, less whatever powers he (or his predecessors) had delegated out or given away. Hobbes and Rousseau both agreed that sovereignty was created through a social contract whereby individuals, originally sovereign unto themselves, gave up part of their individual freedom to create the state. The ruler of the state, in whatever form, then was said to hold the sovereign power (Hobbes, 1651). But Hobbes and Rouseau disagreed on the question of what happens to this sovereignty if the ruler is over thrown. Hobbes would argue that sovereignty simply passes to the next ruler. Rousseau however felt that sovereignty would automatically devolve back to the people, who could then create a new ruler/government as they saw …show more content…
The problem was, as it had always been, how the federal government could physically assert its supremacy over states without the cooperation of state officials. The answer began in 1916 with the National Defense Act of 1916 (National Defense Act, 1916). This act provided substantial federal funding for state militia units and renamed them as the National Guard. It also allowed these units to be called up for national service, including service outside their state (National Defense Act, 1916). The National Defense Amendments of 1933 created dual service, that is to say national guardsmen were sworn into service both for their state and for the U.S. Army (National Defense Act Amendments, 1933). The President of the United States was authorized to call up the units into federal service in time of need and for an unlimited period. This is typical of federalism in the twentieth century, where states voluntarily surrender part of their rights in exchange for