Federalism—the division of authority between the states and the federal government—ranks among the most important and lasting political and constitutional contributions of the American founders. Since the founding, however, Americans have engaged in a perpetual argument over federalism’s proper structure and function. Arranged thematically and covering the entire span of American history, Debating Federalism: From the Founding to Today provides readers with the sources necessary to trace and understand this perennial debate. By examining the theoretical, polemical, political arguments as well as landmark Supreme Court cases, this collection reveals the continuing relevance and contentiousness of federalism in the American constitutional order.
Classic Books Library presents this brand new edition of “The Federalist Papers”, a collection of separate essays and articles compiled in 1788 by Alexander Hamilton. Following the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776, the governing doctrines and policies of the States lacked cohesion. “The Federalist”, as it was previously known, was constructed by American statesman Alexander Hamilton, and was intended to catalyse the ratification of the United States Constitution. Hamilton recruited fellow statesmen James Madison Jr., and John Jay to write papers for the compendium, and the three are known as some of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Alexander Hamilton (c. 1755–1804) was an American lawyer, journalist and highly influential government official. He also served as a Senior Officer in the Army between 1799-1800 and founded the Federalist Party, the system that governed the nation’s finances. His contributions to the Constitution and leadership made a significant and lasting impact on the early development of the nation of the United States.
The anthology 'Federalist Versus Anti-Federalist in America' intricately weaves together a rich tapestry of thought and argumentation from the pivotal era of American constitutional formation. Capturing the fervor and the philosophical underpinnings of the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, this collection presents a wide range of literary styles from polemical essays to persuasive letters, reflecting the diverse mechanisms of discourse employed by the authors. The narratives, collectively, underscore the existential dilemma regarding the extent of federal power and the rights of states, featuring standout discussions that have shaped the contours of American political thought and governance. The backgrounds of the contributorsAlexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, Patrick Henry, and Samuel Bryanpaint a vibrant tableau of early American intellectual life. United in their profound impact on the countrys foundation yet divergent in their visions for its future, these authors embody the quintessential conflict between central authority and local autonomy. Their writings not only align with but also provide historical context for understanding the genesis of the first political parties and the enduring tension in American politics. Reflecting transcendent themes of governance, liberty, and human nature, 'Federalist Versus Anti-Federalist in America' offers readers a unique opportunity to engage with foundational texts that remain exceedingly relevant. By traversing the philosophical and ideological landscape of early American debate, one gains not only a deeper historical insight but also appreciates the dynamic interplay of ideas that continue to shape the republic. This anthology is indispensable for scholars, students, and anyone intrigued by the origins of American political ideology and the dialogue that continues to define it.
"As James Madison led America's effort to write its Constitution, he made two great inventions-the separation of powers and federalism. The first is more famous, but the second was most essential because, without federalism, there could have been no United States of America. Federalism has always been about setting the balance of power between the federal government and the states-and that's revolved around deciding just how much inequality the country was prepared to accept in exchange for making piece among often-warring states. Through the course of its history, the country has moved through a series of phases, some of which put more power into the hands of the federal government, and some rested more power in the states. Sometimes this rebalancing led to armed conflict. The Civil War, of course, almost split the nation permanently apart. And sometimes it led to political battles. By the end of the 1960s, however, the country seemed to have settled into a quiet agreement that inequality was a prime national concern, that the federal government had the responsibility for addressing it through its own policies, and that the states would serve as administrative agents of that policy. But as that agreement seemed set, federalism drifted from national debate, just as the states began using their administrative role to push in very different directions. The result has been a rising tide of inequality, with the great invention that helped create the nation increasingly driving it apart"--
David Shapiro explores the virtues and defects of federalism as it has developed in this country from a variety of perspectives that include historical, constitutional, economic, social, and political considerations. Using the dialectical form adopted by advocates trying a case before a court, Shapiro not only examines the strongest arguments on the two principal sides of the issue but also probes the potential value of the dialectical process itself.
Challenging the myth that the federal government exercises exclusive control over U.S. foreign-policymaking, Michael J. Glennon and Robert D. Sloane propose that we recognize the prominent role that states and cities now play in that realm. Foreign Affairs Federalism provides the first comprehensive study of the constitutional law and practice of federalism in the conduct of U.S. foreign relations. It could hardly be timelier. States and cities recently have limited greenhouse gas emissions, declared nuclear free zones and sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants, established thousands of sister-city relationships, set up informal diplomatic offices abroad, and sanctioned oppressive foreign governments. Exploring the implications of these and other initiatives, this book argues that the national interest cannot be advanced internationally by Washington alone. Glennon and Sloane examine in detail the considerable foreign affairs powers retained by the states under the Constitution and question the need for Congress or the president to step in to provide "one voice" in foreign affairs. They present concrete, realistic ways that the courts can update antiquated federalism precepts and untangle interwoven strands of international law, federal law, and state law. The result is a lucid, incisive, and up-to-date analysis of the rules that empower-and limit-states and cities abroad.
The idea that “states’ rights” restrain national power is riding high in American judicial and popular opinion. Here, Sotirios A. Barber shows how arguments for states’ rights, from the days of John C. Calhoun to the present, have offended common sense, logic, and bedrock constitutional principles. To begin with, states’ rights federalism cannot possibly win the debate with national federalism owing to the very forum in which the requisite argument must occur—a national one, thanks to the Civil War—and the ordinary rules of practical argumentation. Further, the political consequences of this self-defeating logic can only hasten the loss of American sovereignty to international economic forces. Both philosophical and practical reasons compel us to consider two historical alternatives to states’ rights federalism. In the federalism of John Marshall, the nation’s most renowned jurist, the national government’s duty to ensure security, prosperity, and other legitimate national ends must take precedence over all conflicting exercises of state power. In “process” federalism, the Constitution protects the states by securing their roles in national policy making and other national decisions. Barber opts for Marshall’s federalism, but the contest is close, and his analysis takes the debate into new, fertile territory. Affirming the fundamental importance of the Preamble, Barber advocates a conception of the Constitution as a charter of positive benefits for the nation. It is not, in his view, a contract among weak separate sovereigns whose primary function is to protect people from the central government, when there are greater dangers to confront.
For a quarter of a century between 1763 and 1788, Americans intensely debated the nature of government and the need to protect individual liberties. The debate climaxed in the arguments over the ratification of the Constitution. Through a selection of essential documents from 1787 and 1788, this new edition gives readers the flavor and immediacy of the great debate in all its fire, brilliance, and political intensity. Organized by topic, this is a convenient reference and teaching tool. This updated edition contains an entirely new section on the debate over class structure, property rights, and the economy under the proposed Constitution--an ideal introduction to a debate meaningful today.
Since the ratification of the Constitution, which established a union of states under a federal system of governance, two questions have generated considerable debate: What is the nature of the union? What powers, privileges, duties, and responsibilities does the Constitution grant to the national government and reserve for the states and the people? During the more than 200-year history of the Constitution, these issues have been debated time and again and have shaped and been shaped by the nation's political, social, and economic history. This book examines the history and current issues of federalism.
Looks at the debate which lasted over six months, arguing the type of government which would best serve the new nation, covering the historical background, the people who were debating, and the impact on the United States.
