I am in agreement. The Federal government has extrapolated its authority over the states. The fact that the Federal government can step in and cease or regulate state-run-agencies is proof. State's Rights has diminished much more greatly than ever, probably in the last 2-3 decades. The states are their own sovereign power, so to speak, they are ultimately regulated by a higher authority--the Federal government. As far as i can tell the states have lost some of their power not the federal government.
State powers have decreased and Federal government powers have increased. It is due at least partially to decisions made by the Supreme Court that have brought state laws in line with federal laws.
The federal government and the state arises as a result of a consensus reached by various geographically separate regions to be governed by one authority called federalism. Thus making the federal government the overall head and consequently superior in policy making and implementation. Though the states may be autonomous to some extent, it is accountable to the federal government.
The fundamental idea behind the "State's Rights" movement is that the United States is really a Confederation, not a Federation. The difference is subtle, but very important. In a Federation, ultimate sovereignty is held at the national level, by the national government. That is, all parts of the nation owe sovereignty to the nation as a whole. In a federation, ultimate power rests at the national government level; while it is possible to delegate responsibilities (and authority), to other entities, the legal power to delegate sits with the federal government. In a Confederations, the nation is composed of smaller sovereign states, which consent to form a larger union. Thus, individuals owe sovereign allegiance to their state, not the national government. To the extent that the federal government has power, it is granted that power by the permission of the states making up the confederation, and such power can be revoked by any state not extending the federal government such permission. In the United States prior to the US Civil War, the States Rights movement advocated the idea that the US was really a Confederation. The Civil War definitively settled this issue: the US is legally a Federation. Post-Civil War, the States Rights' movement has adopted a less absolute position, in that while they recognize the Federal Government as absolute (and that the US is indeed a Federation), they advocate that significant powers were strictly delegated to the states by the US Constitution (which is the document that defines the limits of the US government's powers). In particular, while recognizing Article VI (supremacy of the Federal government), they advocate that significant laws and regulations undertaken by the Federal government actually violate Article IV (states' powers and rights).
Up until 1941 they were aware, but at any point they did not want to know.
federalist paper number 17 was done by Alexander hamiliton who wrote about the importance of replacing the then government with the republic. he said this will give a better government
The Virginia House of Burgesses was formed in 1619 and was the first form of representative government in the United States. It set the precedent for other local legislatures to be formed throughout the colonies and to an extent it inspired the legislative branch of our government.
The federal government and the state arises as a result of a consensus reached by various geographically separate regions to be governed by one authority called federalism. Thus making the federal government the overall head and consequently superior in policy making and implementation. Though the states may be autonomous to some extent, it is accountable to the federal government.
To the extent that there is a single leader of the US government, the President, as head of the Executive branch of the government, is the leader. Because the US federal government is divided into three equal branches, it could be argued that there is no one leader of the government.
Only to the extent that you have read Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
To some extent, yes.
Yes, the American system does favor federal control or big government to some extent. The federal government has authority over certain aspects, such as national defense, foreign policy, and interstate commerce. However, the system also allows for some power to be vested in the states through the principle of federalism, where they have control over issues like education, public health, and criminal justice. It is a balance between federal control and state autonomy.
Of course not! Each state has its own laws, which are independent of federal laws, at least to the extent they do not contradict federal law or violate federally protected rights. The vast majority of state laws are outside the jurisdiction of federal law; the US Constitution grants the federal government only limited scope within states.
To what extent did Ben Chifley achieve the "Light on the Hill" in his time in government?
In the United States, most if not all US States have three branches. 1. Executive; 2. Legislative; and 3. Judicial. To a large extent these States have the same functions of the Federal government.
The American political party system began as a direct result of differing viewpoints concerning the extent of the powers of the federal government.
The basic infrastructure of the internet was a Federal project that was built by the US military as a communications system. This it later abandoned and it soon became a privately run communications system, to a large extent. The US military no longer uses it for its original purpose. The Federal government, however, has found methods to monitor the activities that are done on the Internet.
He didn't like them, and if a corporate entity had a virtual monopoly and were jacking up rates just because they could, and thus treating people badly, he felt that it was his mission to stop them.
Which type of government you mean? To some extent a communist government.