Federalism: History and Theory Constitution

Federalism: History And Theory constitution established a federalist government that knew variations along the years. There were debates over the powers shared by the national and state governments from the very beginning of the U.S. formation. Since the Declaration of Independence, the founders of the constitution were divided between different forms of distributing the powers between the two.

Hamilton, Washington, Adams and Marshal, the federalists, were the promoters of a central government that was in their opinion the element of guarantee for the economic prosperity and political stability of the United States. Their opponents, such as Madison and Thomas Jefferson, sought to demonstrate that a central strong government was only the replacement of one form of autocracy with another. The balance between the powers shared between the state and the national government was in constant moving towards one or another since then. The U.S.

Constitution draws the division lines between the government's layers only to a certain degree, thus allowing them to be subject to modification for the disputes over issues not specified by it. The Supreme Court is the institution the plays the role of settling the disputes between the federal and the state governments. Between 1790 and 1930, the form government was that of dual federalism. That meant that the powers were clearly defined and distributed between the two and they were well balanced.

The state and national governments were cooperating at the same time. Starting with the 1930s, the form of federalism changed into that of a cooperative federalism.

The process started with the adoption of the sixteenth amendment, the income tax: "it created the foundation for twentieth century federalism, with its emphasis on intergovernmental transfers and the use of taxing and spending powers to further national policies." (http://www.cas.sc.edu/poli/courses/scgov/History_of_Federalism.htm).This modern form of federalism was determined by new priorities at a national level that were asking for a form of cooperation between the national and state governments.

The next step in the evolution of federalism in the United States was into creative federalism and it lasted between 1960 and 1980. Racial and economic justice were the main promoters of this form of federalism that generated crosscutting conditions (e.g. On grants) or overemphasis on cooperation.

The power gained by the national government supported by the people who were living in conditions of prosperity started to fade away once the war in Viet Nam was draining the state's economic resources and other factors such as the economic recession contributed to the withdrawal of support in a stronger national government. The evolution led to the form of federalism that lasted till today: the new federalism. The trend started under Nixon administration was to incline the balance of power from the national government toward the state governments.

The changes were aimed at the more sustained implication of the government states in the decision of spending the public funds, the decentralization of various programs The fact that the states have their own constitution as long as this is not contradicting the U.S. constitution and the delegated powers the national government has according to the U.S. constitution makes the shift of powers from the federal government to the state governments limited by the existence of the U.S. constitution.

A complete shift of powers from the state governments, in political, economic and programmatic terms toward the national government is impossible to be defined in realistic terms. Historical events determined the lines between the layers of government to be in constant move. International and domestic events made the federalist form of government of the U.S. To act like a live entity that will always have to adapt its processes of development to external factors.

Two World Wars, depression periods, globalization, terrorist attacks, the invasion of Iraq and more recently, the collapse of the housing market were making the delegated powers of the federal government subject to constant change in order to adapt and guarantee it its role of representing the nation's interests above all.

National policies involving welfare, environment and education are issues of a general interest that are better regulated by the national government from a general perspective than by the local governments that are able to make it in different degrees and with different means. On the other hand, the private sector pushed toward a limitation of national government powers because of the big corporations that put pressure on greater local autonomy. The recent collapses of AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the government's mandatory intervention are facts that prove.