When could states collect taxes but the federal government could not?
The federal government had no ability to tax when it was operating under the Articles of Confederation. The US Constitution provided the federal government authority to collect taxes; the Sixteenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, added the ability to levy taxes on income.
the weakness of the Articles of Confederation
States held essentially all of the power under the Articles of Confederation. There was very little central government at all. The Federal government did not have the power to collect taxes, meaning that it could not afford to provide even the most basic of services.
They didn't give enough power to the central government, so no policies could be enforced. So, while all states were required to pay taxes to the federal government based upon their population, larger states could simply refuse to pay and no one could do anything about it. The fed could tax, but couldn't collect.
It did not unite the states and the government could not collect taxes.
Another example of federal government taking states power would be the new ways of controlling the states spending, the government now gave out categorical grants from which it could control how the states spent this money. For some states the government was giving out over $200 billion dollars from which 90% of this would be categorical grants and the federal government would regulate how it was spent. The states therefore were restricted on what they… Read More
one of the ways the federal goverment could help the states by giving electricity and money etc.
Why did the inability of the government to raise taxes lead to the collapse of the articles of confederation?
Since taxes could only be collected if the states willing gave money to the federal government, many state simply chose not to give sufficient moneys to the federal government. Without money to function, the federal government could not effectively coordinate policies within the United States.
No the federal government controls the trade between the states.
The Articles created a weak national government and a confederation of states. Congress could not tax the states or the people, it could only request funds to run the government.
No. After the Brittish strong authority, the Articles of Confederation were designed to have a weak federal (national) government, with strong state governments. In fact, the federal government had no power of compulsion over the states: states could choose not to follow federal law
Federal government is the result of a union of states. Which, could be assumed not to be sovereign. Unitary Government is when there are no states in federation, rather the government is all (other than local needs) at national level. Thus Unitary is not Sovereign.
Which clause in Article 6 Section 2 of the Constitution could the federal government use to override the states' bills of rights?
The supremacy clause gave the federal government the ability to override the states bill of rights.
At the constitutional convention how did the framers satisfy the need to have a government that could control the governed?
The framers gave more power to the federal govenrment. The Constitution contained coersive powers over the states. The new federal government held the power of taxation, and military might over the states. The new government was ratified by the people not the states and therefore the social contact was between the people and the federal government.
They wanted the states to have the power to choose the federal laws they could obey.
At first, the court said slavery was up to the states. Later, the court held that the federal government could make slavery illegal.
The similarities between unitary and federal states could be that both types of governments could be democracies. A unitary state could be democratic when the people elect the government officials, as is the case in a federal state.
The federal government can make state and local governments obey federal laws by taking state and local government officials to federal court and suing them. If the court agrees with the federal government, the state or local government can be fined and ordered to follow the federal law. If the state or local officials still refuse to follow the federal law they can be put in jail.
After the brreak with Britain each of the states wrote a new blank a framework for the state government?
No, after the Declaration was published there was a 5 year war. After the war there really wasn't a framework for States to have government beyond what they all ready had. When the federal government was formed the states could model the new state constitutions on the federal constitution.
They supported the idea that states could challenge the federal government.
Thomas Jefferson believed in state rights. he thought that a large federal government threatened liberty and that vigilant states could best protect freedom.
By his strong effort to quash the whiskey rebellion he showed the new federal government meant business and could not easily be ignored. The response also showed the government could and would collect taxes that were due it.
South Carolina had several reasonably valid arguments for why it should be able to secede. The best of these arguments was that the Constitution states that all powers not specifically assigned to the federal government remain with the states. The Constitution does not specifically state that the federal government has the right to remove states from the union, or to force states to stay in the union. Since the federal government wasn't given that power… Read More
The articles of the confederation created a VERY weak federal government. This government could not raise an army, collect taxes, or even enforce its own laws (which, predictably, were very selectively recognized by the states). This created, in essence, more of an alliance between 13 small countries rather than one country.
The Articles of Confederation were designed with a very weak federal government. The states had almost all the power. The national government could not even collect tax! The government was purposely made weak in order to protect the citizens from a tyrannical ruler coming to power (like King George III). However, the Articles miserably failed, and was replaced by the Constitution.
Several states feared the strong federal government and wanted the BILL OF RIGHTS added.
Yes, he did. He believed in a central government . When the whiskey rebellion occurred in which some of the PA farmers refused to pay a federal tax on whiskey, Washington personally led a militia against it showed that the federal government could levy and collect taxes. His ideas were for the most adopted by John Adams and his Federalist party.
According to the US Constitution, the States have the power, and agreed to create a limited Federal government to do the things that the States could not do on their own. Examples include providing for the common defense of all the States. Another is to regualate buying and selling between and among the States. Another is to make no law regarding religion. The Federal Government started taking over when the need to prevent another Great… Read More
railroads protested that only the federal government, not states, could regulate railroads
The Union government, the US Government, believed in the idea that the Federal government was meant to be stronger than the individual state governments. What I mean by this is that the Federal Governemt could pass laws that the states had to recognize and abide by. The Confederate Government believed that the individual state governments were set up to be stronger than the federal government. They felt that the state governments were capable of passing… Read More
John C. Calhoun was a strong supporter of states' rights. The issue of whether or not the federal government had control over the individual states was a hot button topic in his day. One must remember that before the U. S. Constitution, America was a loosely associated confederacy with a weak central government that had little say over most things other than war and defence. Calhoun was loyal to this idea that individual states did… Read More
(; they could not tax, or control or interfere with trade between the individual states ;)
The Federal government and State governments were arguing about the division of powers over the entire nation. The Federal government pushed for a unified national government, constantly moving toward an expansion of their power. The States argued that they could nullify laws which they didn't agree with. Eventually, the country split in two, with the southern states rallying together to fight the Federal government, as the Confederate States of America. The CSA lost the war… Read More
He favored a small central government. He believed in the Constitution which says that all powers not explicitly given to the federal government belong to the states. He did , however, believe that the union was undisolvable -- that states could never secede .
The federal government. They have been doing an amazingly poor job for several decades. We forget that the federal government has power only because they receive it from the people. If we had the guts and drive, the states could initiate changes to the Constitution, and these changes would NOT have to be initiated or approved by the federal government, or any part of it.
One challenge was to collect federal taxes. Taxation was one of the big causes of the revolution and the people were not eager to pay federal taxes. Direct taxes were forbidden under the constitution, so Congress passed a tax on whiskey which was strongly resisted. Washington showed that the federal government could put down such resistance and collect the tax.
The tenth amendment of the US Constitution prohibited certain practices by the states. This amendment stated that the states could only have powers which were not already overseen by the federal government.
What did the Civil War finally decide with regard to the relationship between the federal government and the state governments?
That the individual State or States could not nullify a Federal Law or act in opposition to the US Constitution.
In what ways could the doctrine of nullification have made it difficult for the federal government to operate?
The Doctrine of Nullification held that states had the right to declare null and void any federal law they deem unconstitutional.
The states were in existence before the federal government, and in fact had to ratify the Constitution before it could take effect. Since the states were all essentially sovereign, independent nations, the Founding Fathers could not have done anything without their agreement. In order to get them to accept the Constitution, the state governments of course had to share power with a limited federal government; otherwise they would never have ratified the Constitution, and the… Read More
It was the first set of rules governing the early years of the United States It had flaws that cried out to be remedied in a revised scheme, that turned out to be the Constitution. The Articles had both a weak executive and a very weak national government. Rather than the Federal system which developed under the Constitution, the Articles left mostpower in the hands of the states who retained their rights to armies and… Read More
claimed that the states could nullify any actions by the federal government that they judged unconstitutional
The theory introduced by the Virginia resolution that argued that if the federal government did something illegal the states could intervene for the good of the people is called the theory of?
The Articles of Confederation did not give enough power to the government; they could not collect taxes, enforce laws, or regulate trade. It was up to the states to do those things, and many disagreed about things.
It ensured that the federal government could supersede the state government.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government could not: levy or collect taxes generate an army Also Congress had no power to enforce any of its laws, and it was difficult to enact laws and almost impossible to ammend the Articles themselves.
Nullification was the idea that the states could declare acts of congress to be unconstitutional. In particular South Carolina objected to the federal tariff while Jackson was president and decided to nullify it and so not collect it or pay it.
The United States federal government has websites dedicated to detailing the regulations of employment discrimination. You can also go to a federal building in person and get more information there.
The federal government was too weak under the Articles. Congress could not levy taxes, but depended on donations from the states to operate. (see the related question)
This was tried in the Articles of Confederation and it didn't work. The problem with this is that the federal government does a number of things for the people and the states. Mail delivery, money, trade, and taxes are all under the federal government. When the Articles were in effect each state printed its own money. This didn't work very well. Some states charged a fee to cross the border, while others restricted what could… Read More
Claimed that the states could nullify any actions by the federal government that they judged unconstitutional.