What would you like to do?
Why did the Founding Fathers chose federalism instead of either a confederation or a unitary system in 1787?
Federalism is known as State's Rights. It embodies the concept put in the Constitution by the founding fathers that each state was to be a strong and definite political body in and of itself. The states were to retain most authority to govern their own affairs without interference from the federal government. While we think of our modern America as a democracy, that was not the original intent of the founders. Their concept was for the states to be a group united together under the idea of a free republic. After the Constitutional Convention, when Benjamin Franklin was asked by a citizen what they had been given, he replied, "A republic, if you can keep it". A republic would have less of a central government with more power residing in the individual states.
6 people found this useful
Was this answer useful?
Thanks for the feedback!
It's Unitary. Plain and simple. This is most easily seen in the Russian State Duma. Russia is actually considered a Federal Republic with numerous subdivisions and autonomous …regions. However, in terms of actual administration, Russia seems much closer to a Unitary State.
Israel is a unitary system.
China is neither. China is a centralised (unitary) government where all power is in the central government.
The distinction between the three systems is where ultimate sovereignty resides. In a Unitary government, all sovereignty resides at the national level - thus, t…he national government is superior to, and controls all regional and local governments. In such a system, governments report in what looks like a military chain-of-command: local governments report to and are legally subservient to regional governments, which report to and are subservient to the national government. A unitary government has all power concentrated at the national government, which may delegate some of that power elsewhere, but which retains the ultimate say in which entity has that power. In a Confederate government, the nation is made up of constituent states, each state having ultimate sovereignty. This form results in a national government which is more of an association - the central national government has no legal authority over its constituent state (regional) governments, other than the authority those states voluntarily give it (and can withdraw at any time). Confederations are really government-by-voluntary-consensus, with power being retained at the regional (state) level. At the state level in a confederation, most operate as a Unitary government themselves. Federal governments are a blend of the above two opposites. Most federal systems divide up various responsibilities (sovereignty) into categories, then decide that ONE of: the federal (national), the state (regional), or local (town/city) government should be the ultimate sovereign in that area. Generally speaking, this division is based upon the impact of the topic in question: for responsibilities which impact the nation as a whole, the federal government is usually assigned supreme power, while for activities that are regional or local in nature, the regional (or local) government is assigned sovereignty. In all cases, government levels (federal, state, and local) are ultimate responsible solely to their constituent citizens, and do NOT legally report to another government. Thus, under a federal system, a town mayor has no legal responsibility to follow instructions from a state governor or a national president. In terms of practical application, one obvious place that can be seen is the legal system in place: under a Unitary system, there is but one set of courts, and those courts have jurisdiction over all legal cases. In a Confederate system, there tend to be many court systems, with each region/state's court system applying only to cases within that region/state. In a federal system, there tend to be a myriad of court systems, each having different responsibilities based on the type of infraction or case, with different infractions being judged by different courts, and with multiple court systems having possible jurisdiction over a single geographic area.
A federal system of government is where the power of the government is shared between the states/provinces, etc and the federal government. (example United States) A unitary s…ystem is where the federal government has all the power and provinces have limited power if any at all (France, for example). A confederation is where the central, federal government has left most of the decisions up to the states but retain some power. (E.U. is an example, some argue Switzerland). The U.K. has a unitary system with some devolution. The Scots and Welsh have their own parliaments, but what GB gives, GB can take away.
S in ce the late 1960s, In dia's federal system has experienced severe stra in in center-state relations. Such stra in was almost nonexistent dur in g… the first generation of In dian federal ism (1950-1966). Dur in g the second generation, which followed the death of Prime M in ister Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1966, the rise of a powerful leader of the rul in g Congress party, In dira G and hi, and the emergence of dissent in side the party led to a greater emphasis on centralization and regimentation with in the party and , thereby, the federal system as well. At the same time, economic development had helped to produce new political elites from rural areas who be nefited from the "green revolution" of the 1960s. These new elites challenged the professional and in dustrial elites who had long controlled the Congress party, the national government, and many state governments. Feel in g frustrated in their eff or ts to in fluence national economic policy in a significant way, these new elites have f or mulated dem and s that call f or substantial decentralization, greater state autonomy, and m or e tolerance f or opposition parties whose elect or al supp or t is ma in ly state-based.
Egypt has a federal system of government because there are two levels, a strong central gov. and 29 govern-ates or provinces with weaker local gov.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the unitary confederate and federal systems of government?
credit recovery sucks dont it:) this is all i got so far. Pros and Cons of the unitary system of government. Pros: They usually spend tax dollars more effectively because the…re are fewer people trying to get their hands on tax dollars. And management of the economy is much easier because of a smaller government. Cons: No checks and balances to keep the power even. Slowly responding government. Doesn't keep track of local issues. Is a very divisive form of government. And a major bureaucracy. Pros and Cons of the federal system of government. Pros: The laws are passed in one sovereignty. Cons: Soo many rules will be passed that the people get disappointed which will cause many propagandas. be sure to reword it good luck
A Unitary form of government is one in which sovereignty is wholly in the hands of the national government, so that the states and localities are dependent on its will. A… Confederal form of government is one in which states are sovereign and the national government is allowed to do only that which the states permit. A Federal form of government is one in which sovereignty is shared, so that in some matters the national government is supreme and in other matters the states are supreme.
The official name of Germany (in English) is the Federal Republic of Germany. There are 16 states.
why should a political system be unitary federal or confederal, because a federal system would allow the state would not be a single fraction, state government would be …smaller and more reposnive to local needs.