• What were the reasons America's forefathers divided the government into the legislative, judicial, and executive branches? How does this benefit the three branches?
• What obstacles do the division of power present to enactment of important legislation?
• How was the conflict between supporters of a strong federal government and champions of states' rights characterized then as opposed to now? Identify specific issues.
Cite at least four references to support the content of your paper and wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
Make sure your paper flows well, is free of grammar errors and fact based (rather than opinion based), and use sub-headings in the body of the paper.
Discussion Questions:
What are some of the essential elements of Federalism? Why are they essential?
Why did the drafters of the Constitution establish three branches of the national government? How do those branches interact?
What if there were no federal government?
Federalism is done so that no one has too much power. This is an interesting point if "true." Do others agree?
Before forming your opinion please consider the following information. The Constitution has a Supremacy Clause, which states in pertinent part that where state and federal law conflict, federal law dictates or is supreme.
With the Supremacy Clause in mind, how does one sovereign, specifically the federal government, not have too much power? Is it
possible that the Supremacy Clause contributes to the conflict between state rights and a strong federal government?
Please consider and respond to the following. Yes, the states have the power to make some decisions, but the states also have to abide by Federal law. For example, in a major court decision, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, California wanted permit restrictions on laundries. Many of those laundries were owned and operated by people of Asian decent. As a result, the United States Supreme Court (USSC) determined that the permit regulation had an unfair impact on Asian people and declared the law unconstitutional. California had a reason for the law (safety and stated it was not racial) and felt justified, but the USSC said differently and California had to adapt to the USSC decision.
Does this type of control contribute to the on-going divide between those for and against a strong national government? Focus on the control in your response and not the actually USSC decision.