Open this photo in gallery:

PHOTO ILLUSTRATION: THE GLOBE AND MAIL. SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES

Re The country is falling apart. Why is the federal government so hesitant to act? (Opinion, Nov. 4): Columnist Andrew Coyne cries out for a reformed Parliament. But what about the need for a reformed Senate, the most obvious tool for addressing regional grievances?

The original purpose of the Senate was to be a force for national unity. As George Brown said, On no other condition agreement on the Senate could we have advanced a step.

It is interesting to note that one of the first actions the British Labour Party promises to take, if elected, is to reform the House of Lords. At a time when Britain is beset by the forces of separatism and economic problems, Labour seems to recognize that reforming its bicameral system is not a distraction from other social problems, but a way of solving them.

Gary William OBrien Former clerk of the Senate Ottawa

Canadas founding fathers watched the U.S. federation almost destroy itself in the Civil War, then designed a structure with a stronger central government and lesser provincial rights for a more stable democracy.

If Andrew Coyne is right, we have forgotten this. We had best remember it soon, or we risk squandering the product of their wisdom: the peace, order and good government we have hitherto enjoyed.

Chris Stoate Oakville, Ont.

Andrew Coynes column, combined with the book review of John Ibbitsons latest book, The Duel, fills me with immense sadness (The Duel is a great guide to understanding both Canadas past and present Nov. 4). So much of it rings true: Canada is drifting apart.

I am an old new Canadian having survived the Second World War and have explored vast tracts of this immense land. But the Canada of 1956, when I, as a callow teenager, joined the Canadian Forces Naval Reserve is vastly different from that of today. Then it was a country, now it is a loose assemblage of provinces, each and every one pursuing a beggar my neighbour policy driven by the next election and oblivious to what happens beyond Canadas borders.

Alberta, having succeeded in browbeating the federal government to push through, coute que coute, the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is now pursuing its sovereignty policy, blithely assuming that British Columbia will blindly shoulder the negative effects of increased crude oil and the conflicts this creates with its Indigenous population.

There are global changes under way that are truly alarming from climate change to vast distressed global population movements, and the disruption of an enormous, ruthless and powerful new player in the Far East, China, coping with its own internal contradictions. And I have not mentioned the powder keg to the south.

These all swamp the petty considerations of provincial premiers and provincial electorates. Change in Canada is inevitable, but the only question is whether it will be imposed by external events or embraced in a timely way by Canadians. The latter demands vision.

Boudewyn van Oort Victoria

Well, to be fair to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and aide Katie Telford, managing a country this size is a challenge for two people.

Craig Sims Kingston

Re Diefenbaker and Pearson gave us the Canada that polarization could tear down (Opinion, Oct. 7). John Ibbitson provides a convincing contrast between todays polarizing politics and the quieter approach of Canadas postwar politicians, despite the bitterness of their disagreements.

However, the claim that Canada owes its modern framework to Lester Pearson and John Diefenbaker ignores the extraordinary role played by William Lyon Mackenzie King. I recommend a recently published book by my colleague Neville Thompson (The Third Man: Churchill, Roosevelt, Mackenzie King, and the Untold Friendships that Won WWII), which uses Kings voluminous diaries to give a new perspective on the relationship between Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt.

King defended Canadas independence against Churchills imperialism and he broadened Roosevelts somewhat narrow view of world leadership. King promoted establishment of the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He led Canada to extraordinary prosperity after the Depression so that it was the largest per-capita financial donor to the war effort and to postwar reconstruction. An early believer in state sponsored social safety, he influenced developments in Britain and later in Canada, as outlined by Mr. Ibbitson. Canadas standing in world affairs reached its pinnacle during his tenure and it should remain an aspirational model for future leaders.

Vivian McAlister Professor, University of Western Ontario London, Ont.

Re Is a $100,000 salary enough for a comfortable life anymore? (Report on Business, Nov. 4): A $100,000 annual salary covers the costs of a one-bedroom apartment, without a lot left over for savings, vacations or car payments. Buying a one-bedroom apartment is not an option. This is the reality of living in Vancouver or Toronto.

Annual pay of $100,000 places a person in the top 11 per cent of earnings in the country. This figure is roughly 50 per cent higher than the average salary in Canada. What is left after income taxes and mandatory deductions is in the range of $75,000. For a Vancouver or Toronto resident, roughly half of after-tax income would be spent on rent.

What does it take to earn $100,000 a year? The average professional accountant or lawyer, several years after completing their designations, can expect to earn somewhat more. This entails completing an undergraduate degree, years of professional education, successful completion of professional exams, and fulfilling work experience requirements. A top of scale full-time postsecondary instructor, a police officer or firefighter, after years of seniority, likely earns in that range. College and university sessional lecturers earn considerably less.

The real issue is the cost of accomodations in large Canadian cities relative to what people can realistically expect to earn.

John Shepherd Richmond, B.C.

In my first job after university, I was paid $11,400 a year. My wife and I were able to live modestly, but comfortably in Ontario on this salary, renting a house, owning a car, taking annual holidays in Canada, and so on. Using a Consumer Price Index-based inflation calculator, $11,400 translates to about $85,000 in 2023 dollars. If people cannot get by on $100,000, then perhaps an adjustment in lifestyle expectations regarding whats comfortable is needed.

Alan Ball New Westminster B.C.

Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com

View post:

Letters to the editor: 'Canada is drifting apart.' Fractured federalism ... - The Globe and Mail

Another basic concept embodied in the Constitution is federalism, which refers to the division and sharing of power between the national and state governments. By allocating power among state and federal governments, the Framers sought to establish a unified national government of limited powers while maintaining a distinct sphere of autonomy in which state governments could exercise a general police power. Although the Framers' sought to preserve liberty by diffusing power, Justices and scholars have noted that federalism has other advantages, including that it allows individual states to experiment with novel government programs as laboratories of democracy and increases the accountability of elected government officials to citizens.

Although the text of the Constitution does not clearly delineate many of the boundaries between the powers of the federal and state governments, the Supreme Court has frequently invoked certain constitutional provisions when determining that Congress has exceeded its constitutional powers and infringed upon state sovereignty. One well-known provision, regarded by the Court as both a shield and sword to thwart federal encroachment, is the Tenth Amendment, which provides that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. In modern times, the Court has vacillated between the view that the Tenth Amendment operates to restrict Congress' power and the view that the amendment is a mere truism that cannot be used to strike down federal statutes. Other notable provisions addressing Congress' power relative to the states that the Court has debated include the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, which establishes federal law as superior to state law; the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, which grants Congress the authority to legislate on matters concerning interstate commerce; and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants Congress the power to enforce that Amendment's guarantees against the states through the enactment of appropriate legislation. More broadly, federalism principles also undergird many Supreme Court decisions interpreting individual rights and the extent to which the Court should federalize, for example, the rights afforded to state criminal defendants. But judges and scholars disagree on how basic principles of federalism should be realized, and a key point of controversy is whether the judiciary should enforce the interests of the states against the federal government or leave the resolution of such key questions about the relationship between federal and state power to the political process.

The rest is here:

The Constitution's Basic Principles: Federalism ...

Administrative divisions of Germany. (Clickable image).

Overview of federalism in Germany

Federalism in Germany is made of the states of Germany and the federal government. The central government, the states, and the German municipalities have different tasks and partially competing regions of responsibilities ruled by a complex system of checks and balances.

German federalism dates back to the founding of the Holy Roman Empire in the Middle Ages, to the reforms that came with the Peace of Westphalia and to the constitution of the German Empire from 1871.[1]

Following German unification, German federalism came into conflict with German nationalism. Nationalists argued for power to be concentrated in the central government in Berlin, but were resisted by monarchs and their governments in the various German states outside the Kingdom of Prussia, with the Kingdom of Bavaria in particular keen to defend the rights afforded to it in the Imperial constitution.

After the end of World War II, the federal nature of Germany was restored, after having been effectively abolished under the Nazis. The current German constitution, adopted in 1949, protects Germany's federal nature in the so-called eternity clause.

Since re-unification in 1990, the Federal Republic has consisted of sixteen states: the ten states of the Federal Republic before re-unification ("West Germany"), the five new states of the former East Germany, and Berlin.

The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany divides authority between the federal government and the states (German: "Lnder"), with the general principle governing relations articulated in Article 30: "Except as otherwise provided or permitted by this Basic Law, the exercise of state powers and the discharge of state functions is a matter for the Lnder."[2] Thus, the federal government can exercise authority only in those areas specified in the Basic Law. The states are represented at the federal level through the Bundesrat, which has a role similar to the upper house in a true bicameral parliament.

The Basic Law divides the federal and state governments' legislative responsibilities into exclusive federal powers (Articles 71 and 73), competing powers (Articles 72, 74), deviation powers (Article 72), and exclusive state powers (Article 70). The exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal government includes defense, foreign affairs, immigration, citizenship, communications, and currency standards, whereas the states have exclusive jurisdiction on the police (excluding federal police), most of education, the press, freedom of assembly, public housing, prisons and media affairs, among others.[3] Even in cases where the states have exclusive jurisdiction, they sometimes choose to work with each other and come to a basic agreement with the other states, which is then passed by the sixteen state parliaments and thereby enshrined into law nationwide. This is done in order to avoid legal patchworks. An example of this is the states' online gambling regulations.[4]

In the areas of nature conservation, university degrees, and university admission, among others, state legislation can deviate from (i.e. amend or replace) federal legislation.[3]

The federal and state governments share concurrent powers in several areas, including, but not limited to: business law, civil law,[3] welfare, taxation, consumer protection, public holidays, and public health. In many concurrent powers, however, state legislation only remains in effect as long as there is no federal legislation that contradicts its contents,[3] though the passage of such federal legislation may be subject to additional legal requirements, as stipulated by Article 72, Section 2 of the Basic Law.[2]

The areas of shared responsibility for the states and the federal government were enlarged by an amendment to the Basic Law in 1969 (Articles 91a and 91b), which calls for joint action in areas of broad social concern such as higher education, regional economic development, and agricultural reform.

International relations, including international treaties, are primarily the responsibility of the federal level but, as in other federations, the constituent states have limited powers in this area. As provided in Article 23, Article 24, and Article 32 of the Basic Law, the states (Lnder) have the right to representation at the federal level (i.e. through the Bundesrat) in matters of international relations that affect them, including the transfer of sovereignty to international organizations and, with the consent of the federal government, have limited powers to conclude international treaties.[5]

Some older treaties between German states and other countries also remain in effect. The BavarianAustrian Salt Treaty of 1829 (German: Konvention zwischen Bayern und sterreich ber die beiderseitigen Salinenverhltnisse vom 18. Mrz 1829), for instance, is the oldest European treaty still in effect.[6] 1957 the government of Bavaria used a revision of the treaty to actively claim the states' rights against the will and claims of the federal government.[6]

The Bundestag (meaning Federal Diet) is Germany's federal parliament and the de facto lower house of the federal legislature, and the Bundesrat (Federal Council), which represents the states at the federal level, is the de facto upper house. The entirety of the Bundestag is elected in a single federal election, which is typically held every four years, unlike the Bundesrat, which is composed of the sixteen state governments and therefore prone to change in its composition frequently, as the various states hold elections at different times with little to no coordination. As a result, the federal governing coalition (which requires a majority in only the lower house, i.e. the Bundestag in order to be able to govern, like in most other parliamentary systems) rarely has a stable majority in the upper house, i.e. the Bundesrat, and is therefore required to compromise with opposition parties in order to pass legislation that requires the Bundesrat's approval.

The Bundestag is typically the dominant body in ordinary federal lawmaking, but the Bundesrat's explicit consent (an absolute majority of members voting in favour) is required for every approval law, i.e. bills that affect state finances or administrational duties in some way,[7] which makes up roughly 40% of all federal legislation,[8] otherwise the bill is effectively vetoed and this veto cannot be overridden by the Bundestag. The Bundesrat also has the ability to veto every other type of legislation, so-called objection laws, by an absolute majority and two-thirds majority of all members, though this veto can be overridden by an absolute majority of all members and a two-thirds majority of voting members representing at least of half of all members in the Bundestag, respectively.[7]

A two-thirds majority of all members in the Bundestag and a two-thirds majority of all voting members (representing at least half of members) in the Bundesrat is required for any constitutional amendment.[7]

In a rotating fashion, Federal Constitutional Court judges are elected by a two-thirds majority vote by the Bundestag and the Bundesrat.[9] By a majority vote, judges of other federal courts (e.g. Federal Court of Justice) are elected simultaneously by both the federation and the states with each having half of the voting power.[10]

The president of Germany, a largely symbolic position given Germany's parliamentary system but nonetheless the official head of state, is also elected by both the federal parliament and state legislatures coequally (see: Federal Convention (Germany)).

The makeup of the Bundesrat and therefore the representation of the states at the federal level is fundamentally different from the upper houses of some other federal systems, such as the Swiss Council of States or the United States Senate. In those countries, upper house legislators are elected separately and are therefore independent from their respective state governments. In contrast, the members of the Bundesrat are merely delegates of state governments and invariably vote and propose laws as instructed by their respective governments, meaning the states exert direct influence over federal politics.

Since Germany is a member of the European Union, some of the powers the federal government constitutionally possesses are, in practice, exercised by EU institutions, namely by the European Parliament, the European Commission, the European Council, and the European Court of Justice. The EU policy areas, shared or exclusive, include, but are not limited to: monetary policy (Germany being a member of the Eurozone), environment, agriculture, foreign policy, internal market, customs union, and consumer protection. However, all of these powers were freely delegated to the EU by Germany (unlike in a federation where power is inherent and does not require delegation) and Germany remains sovereign and maintains the right to leave the union, therefore, the EU is not part of German federalism. Germany also maintains a large degree of control over EU policy through the European Council and its MEPs in the European Parliament.

Here is the original post:

Federalism in Germany - Wikipedia

Overview

Federalism is a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Generally, an overarching national government is responsible for broader governance of larger territorial areas, while the smaller subdivisions, states, and citiesgovern the issues of local concern.

Both the national government and the smaller political subdivisions have the power to make laws and both have a certain level of autonomy from each other.

In the United States, the Constitution has established a system of dual sovereignty, under which the States have surrendered many of their powers to the Federal Government, but also retained somesovereignty.Examples of this dual sovereignty are described in the U.S. Constitution.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution contains the Supremacy Clause, which reads,"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." This effectively means that when the laws of the federal government are in conflict with the laws of a state's government, the federal law will supersede the state law.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution describes specific powers which belong to the federal government. These powers are referred to as enumerated powers.

The Tenth Amendmentreserves powers to the states, as long as those powers are not delegated to the federal government. Among other powers, this includes creating school systems, overseeing state courts, creating public safety systems, managing business and trade within the state, and managing local government. These powers are referred to as reserved powers.

Concurrent powers refers to powers which are shared by both the federal government and state governments. This includes the power to tax, build roads, and create lower courts.

For more on federalism, see this Florida State University Law Review article, this Vanderbilt Law Review article, and thisStanford Law Review article.

More here:

Federalism | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Introduction

One great achievement of the American founding was the creation of an effective constitutional structure of political institutions. Two important aspects of the U.S. Constitutionfederalism and the separation of powersrepresent, in part, the framers efforts to divide governmental power. Federalism limits government by creating two sovereign powersthe national government and state governmentsthereby restraining the influence of both. Separation of powers imposes internal limits by dividing government against itself, giving different branches separate functions and forcing them to share power.

What is federalism? Why did the Founders adopt a federal rather than a unitary system? What kinds of federal relationships did the Constitution establish and how? How and why has the federal balance of power changed over time?

How did the Constitution divide power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government? What are the different roles played by each of these branches in American national government?

Read the rest here:

Chapter 3: Federalism and the Separation of Powers ...

Overview of federalism in Nigeria

Federalism in Nigeria refers to the devolution of self-governance by the West African nation of Nigeria to its federated states, who share sovereignty with the Federal Government.

Federalism in Nigeria can be traced to Sir Frederick Lord Lugard , when the Northern and Southern protectorates were amalgamated in 1914.

Federalism is a system of government in which governmental powers that exists in a country are shared between central government and component region. It is also defined as the system of government in which governmental powers are shared between the component units and the central government, i.e. the federal government and its components (state and local government).

Bernard Bourdillon the Governor-general at that time initiated and laid the foundation of federalism in Nigeria in 1939 by creating three provinces. He later handed over the constitution to his successor Arthur Richards and it became the Richards Constitution of 1946.At the beginning of formal British indirect rule in 1901, Nigeria was divided into two regions: Northern and Southern, both of which were divided into provinces. From 1901 to 1958, the number of regions was increased to three through both acquisition of territories and partition from existing provinces. However, while native-born chiefs and clerks were appointed to govern the provinces, the regions were governed by the British-appointed colonial authorities. Such regions were made dependent upon the colonial authorities for martial law, manpower and management of resources.

With the approach of independence, power over the regions was given to Nigerian-born citizens, and regional legislatures were established. By the time that Nigeria had declared itself a republic and replaced the post of Governor-General with the post of President, a national bicameral parliament was established and the country was considered a federation of the three regions. The Mid-Western Region was formed from the Western Region in 1966, and Lagos, the capital, was effectively governed as an unofficial fourth region outside the bounds of the Western Region.

After the first coup and under the short-lived military government of Aguiyi-Ironsi, Nigeria was reorganized under a central government. Following the counter-coup which resulted in Aguiyi-Ironsi's deposition and assassination, Nigeria was reorganized as a federal country, with three of the regions being divided into newer entities and all first-level subdivisions being renamed as states:

the states of former Eastern Region made a bid to secede from Nigeria as the states of Biafra and Republic of Benin, resulting in the Nigerian Civil War.

In 1976, six years after the end of the civil war, the states were further reorganized:

State boundaries and names were also reorganized.

The demand for the creation of newer states in Nigeria tends to emanate from sub-state groups, often ethnic- or tribal-interest groups, which accuse the current larger state governments of subverting or ignoring the interests and necessities of the more local regions. Nigeria also has too much power politically and economically the states have said.

View original post here:

Federalism in Nigeria - Wikipedia

Within the next few days, India will celebrate its 73rd Republic Day quoting seventy-three years of having the constitution into effect. Since then India is a federal republic (Union of states) however on actual grounds, We follow a quasi-federal structure. This certainly means that the centre will have a cutting edge in terms of powers as compared to states. British Raj introduced the process of civil services in India to streamline the process of administration. Ever since then the central government is run by a human resource mechanism called All India Services.

There have been several changes in past years regarding the process of hiring & training civil servants. Presently the Department of Personnel and Training takes charge of this process for the central government. Once the DOPT selects the candidates for All India Services via UPSC, It allocates state cadres to the selected candidates. Now a person has to serve in his/her cadre unless a deputation knocks at his/her door. In laymans language deputation is an ad-hoc service that an employee performs at a location different from his permanent job location.

Presently, As per the IAS (Cadre) Rules-1954: the State has to nominate the names of All India Services officers for deputation and a maximum of 40 percent of the total strength from the state can be sent for deputation, However on actual grounds the numbers have gone to 25% and very recently due to scarcity of IAS officers the percentage has dipped to 18-17%. Due to this, the centre is facing a huge shortage of mid-senior level IAS/IPS/IFoS officers.

Now let us understand why does central government requires All India Services officers, Central Government holds control of various ministries that are headed by the elected members however bureaucracy runs the day-to-day administration of these offices. Policy framing, brainstorming, sector-specific decision, and a lot more is driven by All India Services Officers. In order to run & deliver efficiently, Centre requires such sector-specific officers at deputation. Now there is a process to get these officers at deputation First is centre submits its request to DOPT for All India Services Officers. Secondly, States nominate the list of IAS/IPS/IFoS officers that they can afford for deputation. Thirdly the decision lies on the officers to accept the deputation.

Since this process is tightly coupled and adds a dependency on states recently an update was made in the deputation rules which mentions that Centre can get an All India Services officer on deputation without the prior consent of the state. This decision has ultimately added a question mark on centre and state relations.

For a nation to progress towards development, The centre and state must work in a synergy wherein the demands of deputation must be heard by the state government regardless of any political background(s) and having nations interest first policy. Secondly, the number of seats for all Indian services must be increased to cope up with the demand and supply of human resources chain, lastly lateral entry into sector-specific domains at mid-senior level bureaucracy must be entertained by the GOI.

Alexa Smart Said: Isnt it ironical approximately 10 lakh students appear for UPSC every year and We are short of IAS/IPS/IFoS officers?

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

See original here:

Co-operative federalism A tool for nations progress - The Times of India Blog

Anti-Federalist vs. Federalist Debate

The American Revolution was a costly war and left the colonies in an economic depression. The debt and remaining tensionsperhaps best summarized by a conflict in Massachusetts known as Shays' Rebellionled some founding political members in the U.S. to desire for more concentrated federal power. The thought was that this concentrated power would allow for standardized fiscal and monetary policy and for more consistent conflict management.

However, a more nationalistic identity was the antithesis of some founding political members' ideals for the developing states. A more centralized American power seemed reminiscent of the monarchical power of the English crown that had so recently and controversially been defeated. The potential consequences of centralized fiscal and monetary policy were especially frightening for some, reminding them of burdensome and unfair taxation. Anti-federalists were closely tied to rural landowners and farmers who were conservative and staunchly independent.

The most important parts of this debate were decided in the 1700s and 1800s in U.S. history, and the Federalist Party dissolved centuries ago, but the battles between federalist and anti-federalist ideologies continue into the present day in left and right wing American politics. To better understand the history behind this ongoing ideological debate, watch the following video from author John Green's U.S. history Crash Course series.

Prior to the Constitution, there was the Articles of Confederation, a 13-articled agreement between the 13 founding states that covered issues of state sovereignty, (theoretical) equal treatment of citizenry, congressional development and delegation, international diplomacy, armed forces, fund raising, supermajority lawmaking, the U.S.-Canadian relationship, and war debt.

The Articles of Confederation was a very weak agreement on which to base a nationso weak, in fact, that the document never once refers to the United States of America as being part of a national government, but rather "a firm league of friendship" between states. This is where the concept of the "United States"i.e., a group of roughly and ideologically united, individually ruling bodiescomes from in the naming of the country. The Articles of Confederation took years for the 13 states to ratify, with Virginia being the first to do so in 1777 and Maryland being the last in 1781.

With the Articles of Confederation, Congress became the only form of federal government, but it was crippled by the fact that it could not fund any of the resolutions it passed. While it could print money, there was no solid regulation of this money, which led to swift and deep depreciation. When Congress agreed to a certain rule, it was primarily up to the states to individually agree to fund it, something they were not required to do. Though Congress asked for millions of dollars in the 1780s, they received less than 1.5 million over the course of three years, from 1781 to 1784.

This inefficient and ineffective governance led to economic woes and eventual, if small scale, rebellion. As George Washington's chief of staff, Alexander Hamilton saw firsthand the problems caused by a weak federal government, particularly those which stemmed from a lack of centralized fiscal and monetary policies. With Washington's approval, Hamilton assembled a group of nationalists at the 1786 Annapolis Convention (also known as the "Meeting of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government"). Here, delegates from several states wrote a report on the conditions of the federal government and how it needed to be expanded if it was to survive its domestic turmoil and international threats as a sovereign nation.

In 1788, the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, greatly expanding the powers of the federal government. With its current 27 amendments, the U.S. Constitution remains the supreme law of the United States of America, allowing it to define, protect, and tax its citizenry. Its development and relatively quick ratification was perhaps just as much the result of widespread dissatisfaction with a weak federal government as it was support for the constitutional document.

Federalists, those who identified with federalism as part of a movement, were the main supporters of the Constitution. They were aided by a federalist sentiment that had gained traction across many factions, uniting political figures. This does not mean there was no heated debate over the Constitution's drafting, however. The most zealous anti-federalists, loosely headed by Thomas Jefferson, fought against the Constitution's ratification, particularly those amendments which gave the federal government fiscal and monetary powers.

A sort of ideological war raged between the two factions, resulting in the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, a series of essays written by various figuressome anonymously, some notfor and against the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

Ultimately, anti-federalists greatly influenced the document, pushing for strict checks and balances and certain limited political terms that would keep any one branch of the federal government from holding too much power for too long. The Bill of Rights, the term used for the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, are especially about personal, individual rights and freedoms; these were included partly to satisfy anti-federalists.

Among anti-federalists, some of the most prominent figures were Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe. Jefferson was often considered a leader among the anti-federalists. Other prominent anti-federalists included Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee.

Alexander Hamilton, a former chief of staff to George Washington, was a proponent of a strong federal government and founded the Federalist Party. He helped oversee the development of a national bank and a taxation system. Other prominent federalists of the time included John Jay and John Adams.

Other figures, such as James Madison, greatly supported Hamilton's federalist intentions for a constitution and national identity, but disagreed with his fiscal policies and were more likely to side with anti-federalists on matters of money. Without Madison's influence, which included acceptance of anti-federalists' desire for a bill of rights, it is unlikely that the U.S. Constitution would have been ratified.

Go here to read the rest:

Anti-Federalist vs Federalist - Difference and Comparison ...

Our first edit says India would have gained from an early 5G roll-out. Read here The second edit talks of why the proposed IAS rule change weakens Centre-state relations. Read here

Tamal Bandyopadhyay: Time to address conflict of interest in parliamentary panels. Should MPs who own companies be part of parliamentary committees? Read here

Surinder Sud: Water security is not getting the attention it deserves. Read here

There will be more natural disasters, says Ajay Shah.

A greater focus on disaster relief and disaster risk resilience is called for. Read here

QUOTE OF THE DAY My father dreamt of an India where all religions coexist peacefully. The statue shouldnt be the only tribute to Netaji, we must also honour his values.

Subhash Boses daughter, Anita Bose-Pfaff

Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital Editor

Go here to read the rest:

Best of BS Opinion: Combative federalism, helping water security & more - Business Standard

On January 26, 1950 when the Indian Constitution came into force, it was a big step for the nation that had longed to achieve the ideals of justice, equality, liberty and fraternity. Our Constitution tried to give a definite shape to the aspirations of the people for a sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic through provisions like fundamental rights of all citizens. In a country of subcontinental proportions, it is necessary that the ideals mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution should extend to all levels of governance. The overall emphasis on equality in the Constitution is visible in all arrangements made around the federal spirit and ideas.

Conscious of the differential needs of the populations of different states, the drafters of the Constitution made provisions for an equitable share of powers and responsibilities among different levels of governments. The lists in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution Union, state and concurrent are an example of this division, wherein each level of government has its own sphere, enabling context-sensitive decision-making. Later, institutions for local self government were added through the 73rd and 74th amendments, which strengthened grass roots democracy.

Article 246 and Article 243 G provide for this division of responsibilities. Article 280 provided for the constitution of Finance Commission to define the financial relationship and terms between the Union and states. Apart from these institutions and the Rajya Sabha, the Constitution makers also left much scope for consultative and deliberative bodies so as to strengthen the spirit of cooperation and federalism. Article 263 provided for the establishment of an Inter-State Council for smooth transition of business between the Union and states and resolution of disputes.

The Planning Commission always had space for discussion on issues concerning the federal nature of the polity and was sensitive to the different developmental requirements of states. The inter-state tribunals, the National Development Council and other informal bodies have served as vehicles of consultations between the Union, states and UTs. These bodies have been instrumental in tackling difficult issues democratically through deliberations while upholding the cooperative spirit between the Union and states. Unfortunately, we are now witnessing the worst assault on the federal system and on institutions.

The Planning Commission has been scrapped. The Inter-State Council has met only once in the last seven years while the National Development Council has not met at all. The tenure of the 15th Finance Commission was mired in controversy and many states expressed apprehensions about devolution. The misconceived GST has already taken away much of the autonomy available to states and has made the countrys indirect tax regime unitary in nature. Many important and politically sensitive decisions are taken without reference to, and consultation with, the concerned states. Article 370 was removed without consulting the state legislature.

Parliament legislated on agriculture, entry no. 14 in the state list, to enact the three contentious farm laws, overstepping its jurisdiction and imposing a law on the states. Students in Tamil Nadu have committed suicide over the discriminatory nature of the NEET examination. Other centralised examinations are also indifferent to languages spoken in different parts of India and education boards of different states. The New Education Policy has been flagged as encroaching on the federal nature of the polity. The BSFs jurisdiction was extended in Assam, West Bengal and Punjab without any consultation with the concerned states. The constitutional office of governor has come under scrutiny several times for encroaching on the powers of state executive and legislature. Recently, the rejection of the Republic Day tableaux of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal by the Centre prompted protests by the respective states.

These developments stem from an ideology that has disregard for the diversity of the country and a contempt for constitutional values. These are rooted in a monolithic conception of the country, which is the hallmark of the RSS and the BJP. Their obsession with homogeneity and the idea of Hindi-Hindu-Hindusthan is blinding. The philosophy of uniformity and flattening out diversity has disastrous consequences for our republic, society and ways of life. The obsession with homogeneity can escalate and destroy the progressive ideals of secularism, tolerance and mutual respect. It should be underlined that Article 1 of our Constitution declares that India that is Bharat is a union of states, and that devolution of powers is necessary in such a setting. A conscious recognition of the federal character of our polity is essential to protect our national character. A struggle at all levels against the Union governments moves to usurp federal rights has to be waged.

This column first appeared in the print edition on January 21, 2022 under the title The missing federal spirit. The writer is General Secretary, CPI

Read this article:

The Republic Day is a reminder of the spirit of federalism and why it is under strain - The Indian Express

Bill Description: House Bill 454 amends Idaho Code to incorporate federal statutes by reference, including future amendments to those statutes.

Rating: -1

Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the Tenth Amendment. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?

House Bill 454 amends Section 67-5408, Idaho Code, to incorporate by reference the "rehabilitation act of 1973, P.L. 93-112, as amended by the workforce innovation and opportunity act of 2014, P.L. 113-128, and all subsequent amendments thereto. ..." It goes on to say that the Idaho Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired "shall observe and comply with all requirements of such [federal] acts."

This is a classic example of making Idaho law subject to changeable federal laws. By obligating an Idaho commission to "observe and comply" with "all subsequent amendments" that may be made to a federal law, the Idaho Legislature abdicates its duty of responsibility and oversight.

If a federal law must be incorporated by reference, it should be limited to the law as it exists on a certain date, so that the federal government cannot effectively change Idaho law without the Legislature's express consent.

(-1)

Go here to see the original:

House Bill 454 Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired - Idaho Freedom - idahofreedom.org

Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, chairman of the State Administration Council, said that peace talks would be held if the NCA and the constitution do not affect the building of a union based on democracy and federalism.

This was stated by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing at a meeting of the State Administration Council in Nay Pyi Taw on January 20.

Peace talks must be based on the Union. In the case of all ethnic groups, the federal states are given equal rights in a democracy and federalism. All ethnic nationalities must be given equal opportunities and cannot be prioritized by one person alone. Therefore, the peace process will be accepted as long as it does not affect the building of a union based on the NCA and the constitution and democracy and federalism, said Senior General Min Aung Hlaing.

During the reign of the NLD government, the NLD often came to me to negotiate to amend Article 59 (f) of the Constitution. The Tatmadaw worked to amend the constitution in 2011-2015 period as well as in 2015-2020 period. Since the Constitution was start drafted around 1990, it is inconsistent with the current situation and understands that it needs to be amended. However, he added that the factors that could jeopardize our three main objectives were not included.

There are ethnic armed groups that have signed the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA), non-signatory ethnic armed groups and subsequent terrorist organizations. We are in regular talks with the NCA signatories and informally with the non-signatories. The KIA and KNPP, which are part of the non-signatory group, have supported CDM groups, provided bomb disposal training and provided ammunition. They themselves are involved in acts of terrorism and were involved in blowing up the roads and bridges, said Senior General Min Aung Hlaing.

The meeting was attended by Deputy Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the State Administration Council Vice-Senior General Soe Win, council members General Mya Tun Oo, General Tin Aung San, Lieutenant General Moe Myint Tun, Mahn Nyein Maung, U Thein Nyunt, U Khin Maung Swe, Daw Aye Nu Sein, Jeng Phang Naw Taung, U Moung Har, U Sai Lone Saing, Saw Daniel, Dr Banyar Aung Moe, Lieutenant General Soe Htut, U Shwe Kyein, Secretary Lt-Gen Aung Lin Dwe and Joint Secretary Lt-Gen Ye Win Oo.

Continued here:

Peace talks will be held if the NCA and the constitution do not affect the building of a union based on democracy and federalism: SAC's Chair - Eleven...

It is nice to hear voices singing a different tune. Once-upon-a-time Chief Economic Adviser, Dr Arvind Subramanian is, currently, a Senior Fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at the Brown University. He has excellent academic credentials and is a prolific writer. In an article in Foreign Affairs in December, Dr Subramanian has found fault with the economic policies of the government going under the tagline Atmanirbhar Bharat.

Multiple Concerns

Dr Subramanians top three concerns are subsidies, protectionism and shunning of regional trade agreements. His other concerns include suspect data, anti-federalism, majoritarianism and undermining of independent institutions. He has, unwittingly, let out the reasons why he left the government in 2018 after nearly four years when the government was happy to continue with him. He was not happy and perhaps anticipated that things will become worse.

Things have indeed become worse. The average tariff that was about 12 per cent under the UPA government has now increased to 18 per cent. There is indiscriminate use of safeguard duties, anti-dumping duties and non-tariff measures. India walked away from multilateral trade agreements that would have enormously benefited the country. It is ironic that while Mr Narendra Modi is eager to enter into politico-defence multilateral pacts (GSOMIA, COMCASA, QUAD, the Second QUAD, RELOS), he is averse to trade agreements.

Another once-upon-a-time economic adviser is also disenchanted with Mr Modis economic policies. Dr Arvind Panagariya is currently Professor of Economics at Columbia University and was Vice-chairperson of the Niti Aayog. In a recent article in The Economic Times, he sang the praises of the government but kept the sting in the tail. He wrote: it must open the economy wider through free trade agreements as well as roll back high tariffs, fix the higher education system by replacing the archaic University Grants Commission Act of 1956 by a modern law, and broaden the bases of both direct and indirect taxes. Privatization of PSUs must be accelerated and of PSBs begun.

Apart from the fact that Dr Arvind Subramanian and Dr Arvind Panagariya were government insiders until a few years ago, both are liberal economists, teach in reputed academic institutions, and are supporters of the private sector-led model. While they do not hesitate to identify the shortcomings of the economic policies, they are reluctant to list the disastrous consequences of such shortcomings.

Many Consequences

Readers of this column know what the consequences have been:

decline in per capita income in a country with many poor people;

increase in malnutrition, stunting and wasting among children;

slippage from rank 94 to rank 104 (out of 116 countries) in the Global Hunger Index;

millions of people pushed into poverty thanks to demonetisation, scant support for MSMEs, refusal to transfer cash to the poor and mismanagement of the pandemic;

high unemployment (urban 8.4 per cent, rural 6.4 per cent, CMIE);

high inflation (CPI 5.6 per cent);

high indirect taxes and indulgent direct taxes; poorly designed GST;

profiteering in sale of petrol, diesel and LPG;

return of the licence-permit regime;

emergence of monopolies;

crony capitalism;

flight of top-class business, engineering, medical and science talent.

While the people bear the economic price of the wrong policies and their consequences, the Modi government has not yet been called to bear the political price. In any other liberal democracy, the home-bound trek of millions of poor workers without money, food or medicines; the shocking shortage of oxygen, hospital beds, medicines, ambulances and even space in crematoriums and burial grounds; the uncertified and uncounted deaths of millions due to Covid-19; the thousands of bodies left to float on the Ganga or left on its banks; the callous neglect of the education of millions of children when the schools were ordered to be shut; and the rising number of unemployed youth, would have challenged the governments survival. Here, the government carries on nonchalantly, shuts down debate in Parliament,pursues Luddite policies, and dazzlesthe people with State-sponsored religious spectacles.

Growing Injustice

Meanwhile, inequality grows, along with inequity and injustice. The World Inequality Report 2022 authored by L Chancel, T Piketty et al has estimated that the top 10 per cent of the adult population of India garners 57 per cent of the national income and the bottom 50 per cent only 13 per cent. The top 1 per cent gets 22 per cent of the national income. The Oxfam Report released last Sunday endorsed those bleak conclusions and stated that the top 10 per cent holds 77 per cent of the nations wealth. The number of Indian billionaires grew from 102 to 142 while 84 per cent of households suffered a decline in their income in 2021. The billionaires wealth increased from Rs 23.14 lakh crore in March 2020 to Rs 53.16 lakh crore in November 2021 while more than 4,60,00,000 fell into extreme poverty.

The Budget (2022-23) is a few days away. It would be a tragedy if the government believed it is Teflon-coated and need not change course. The threat of paying a political price is the only deterrent to an uncaring government.

Read more from the original source:

No political price yet - The Indian Express

Trepidation fills many progressives as we approach the 49th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. While most Americans continue to support legal access to abortion, a conservative Supreme Court supermajority stands poised to gut if not overturn the decision later this year in the Dobbs v. Jackson case. And it would be a foolish dream to imagine that our current fragile, deadlocked federal Democratic trifecta can shepherd legislation guaranteeing abortion access through to passage. The fight for reproductive rights is headed back to the states.

This makes building progressive, pro-choice power in our states urgent and existential. As we prepare for state battle, progressives must commit to two principles. First, we must embrace the fight for state power as a vital, necessary part of the progressive project. State and federal power exist in interdependence, and progressives must permanently pledge to build power at both levels. Second, we must envision the capacity of states to do more for us than solely protect the right to an abortion. Legal abortion is necessary, but not sufficient. It must be the floor, not the ceiling, in the struggle to establish the human right of bodily autonomy. In this moment, let us also reimagine what our states could do for us, and indeed to demand that our states create the conditions under which reproductive justice can be achieved.

Progressives have long been wary of "states' rights' and federalism. As dean of Yale Law School and federalism scholar Heather Gerken has explained, the concept of states' rights has been invoked to defend deeply abhorrent institutions in our history, including slavery and Jim Crow. Thus progressives look to national power, and rights derived under the federal Constitution, as the gold standard for establishing civil rights and other protections. In my view, progressives' continued wariness of states, in terms of both institution-building and narrative-building, leaves a tremendous amount of power on the table. By ceding institutional and narrative control about the importance and value of state power, progressives directly serve conservative interests that have ruthlessly and successfully sought to build power at this level of government for centuries.

RELATED:When SCOTUS guts Roe: The covert plan to provide abortion pills on demand and avoid prosecution

A different approach is to push beyond the stale, false binary choice between building federal power and building state power. They are interdependent levels of power we must do both. We can organize and advocate for electoral, policy and doctrinal victories at the federal level, and celebrate them when they occur. At the same time, we can also tend to the gardens of our states, where building power is just as important. We need to shift the narrative beyond the conception of state power as inferior and even unsavory, and instead understand federal and state power as interdependent, symbiotic and necessary at both levels to achieve progressive goals. In addition to that narrative shift, we need a massive redistribution of progressive effort, strategy and resources toward our states. As states grow in power, we must reckon with and embrace their positive potential in order to achieve the protections and conditions we so deeply desire.

Once we commit to invest as much in states as we do in federal power-building, we can do the work of envisioning states as virtuous venues for progress and demanding that they deliver on this promise. As the unparalleled, uncompromising American feminist bell hooks said, "To be truly visionary we have to root our imagination in our concrete reality while simultaneously imagining possibilities beyond that reality."

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

In our current reality, we cannot rely on the courts or the federal government to protect our reproductive rights. But we can imagine different realities including one in which states are bastions of progressive policies that dismantle barriers to abortion access. And we can further imagine a reality in which reflective state legislatures create the conditions under which we have both the freedom to control our bodies and to parent with dignity, so that we can achieve full reproductive justice.

The reproductive justice organizing framework, created by Black women such as Loretta Ross, centers the experiences and leadership of Black women and communities most affected by oppression. It asserts the importance of fighting equally for several human rights, including the ability to choose to have a child, or not to, as well as the ability to parent with dignity. This framework includes abortion access as a key human right, and also recognizes that reproductive self-determination is directly linked to community conditions. Social and policy conditions as varied as the ability to access quality health care, to receive fair wages and experience safe work conditions and to live in safe homes with clean air and water are inextricably tied to reproductive autonomy, access and freedom.

Critically, many of these conditions have always been, and are now increasingly, controlled by state government. Indeed, as we brace for the potential of a "post-Roe America," we must remember that there has never even been a uniformly "Roe America." Abortion access has always been conditional on class, geography, race and ability. Decades of public policies at the state level rooted in systemic racism and inequality have created ground-level conditions in which poor people, Black people, indigenous people and other people of color often remain situated farthest from the promise of reproductive justice.

As we approach Roe's anniversary this year, progressives must be clear-eyed about the work ahead. We must push beyond stale narratives about "states' rights" and instead embrace the fight for state power as a necessary and permanent aspect of our struggle. We must reimagine states as expansive and transformative venues for the future not just the future of reproductive rights, but of reproductive justice.

Read more on the fate of abortion rights and the struggle for reproductive justice:

More:

After Roe v. Wade: Now the fight for reproductive justice moves to the states - Salon

Often, Americans speak of the US Constitution as if it is the fountain from which political truth originates. Even those who fight stridently for constitutional orthodoxy sometimes forget that the US Constitution and the rest of Americas founding documents were just as much a climax of political thought as they were a beginning.

Federalism is one of the few political mechanisms that benefit everyone.

By federalism, I mean the political construct we call the American Republic, a constitutional union of sovereign states under a limited national government whose power and authority are divided into separate and co-equal branches. This complicated and unique form of government was not drawn up at a whim.

The Federalist Papers, essays that argued for the adoption of the US Constitution after the Revolutionary War,said it this way: Experience is the oracle of truth; and where its responses are unequivocal, they ought to be conclusive and sacred. In plainer terms, we canquote Jonah Goldberg, The founders put on paper what history had ratified by experience.

It is easy to be naturally conservative of the founding vision, accept it under its own terms, recognize that it has worked, and desire to maintain its efficacy. It is more complicated and requires deeper learning and understanding to be consciously conservative of the founding vision and to comprehend the origins of that vision. But in this more difficult path lies a more effective way to maintain that founding vision.

First and foremost, we must recognize the founders crafted a government for humans as they are and not for humans as they wished them to be. Asanother quote from the Federalist Papersposits, If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

The founders recognized, most decidedly, that humanity was not composed of angels. They had learned through a study of history and through personal experience that if a system of government allows for abuse, the abuse will inevitably occur. From Caesar and the Roman Senate to King John and the Magna Carta, on to their own contemporary experience with the tyrannical abuses of King George, they knew and understood the corrupting rot of unrestrained power.

Secondly, it should be understood most of the founders were pious men, and even those who might escape this label were enlightened seekers of personal virtue. They believed virtue was the desired end of humanity, but they rejected the idea that virtue could be a construct.

They were inheritors of the spirit of theenlightenmentandrenaissanceeras, a spring of intellectual and rational thought that had only just escaped the darkened winter of feudal, papal dictatorial control that had strangled the progress of Western Civilization. Their experience and learning had prevailed upon them the belief that the individual, unfettered of corruptible autocratic rule, was the greatest wellspring of human progress.

Thirdly, we must take into consideration the failure that was the Articles of Confederation. Their distrust of national government being too strong, the founders first attempt at a free society lacked the invested authority and powers given to the national government to maintain the order necessary for the maintenance of individual liberty. The US Constitution was a document designed to protect freedom and liberty. But it was a tempered vision forged in the mistakes of an attempt at monarchist utopia.

With these three understandings before us, that power corrupts, that the individual is sacred, and that order is necessary for maintaining freedom, we have the fundamental blueprint from which the founders crafted the American Republic.

The US Constitution empowered the national government considerably beyond the impotence of the Articles of Confederation and yet checked that power by limiting its scope and authority, divided it into three branches at tension with one another, and further ensured a limiting factor of tension by securing the sovereignty of the states. To ensure the point was not missed, the first action of the new federal Congress was to ratify a bill enumerating the rights of the individual under the new framework of the federalist government.

Here is where we should recognize the common philosophical and political heritage of all Americans. Here is where we can see what is conclusive and sacred about the Constitution, federalism, and the miracle of the American Republic.

We disagree on much. We contest with each other on matters of ideological approach. We have fought hard and will continue to fight vehemently in factional contests for control of the wheels of government. But we must honor and treat sacred the understandings of human nature the founders built the government upon because those understandings have allowed the contests, the fights, and the great debates of our history to take place largely without the contest of arms and without the dissolution of the republic.

We should let states maintain their sovereignty, let the branches of federal government maintain their balance and counterpoise, let the difficult decisions be hashed out in Congress by the peoples representatives, and let the free market of ideas function fully and properly.

We should not turn our backs on the oracle of truth that those who came before so wisely supplicated for an understanding of how to proceed in their time. We must decide how best to proceed in our own time. We are faced with many complex issues whose answers do not necessarily lie plainly in an old book or document for us to happen upon. But as we proceed, let us not forget that we walk upon a foundation forged by lives, fortunes, and honor sanctified and sacrificed in the crucible of liberation.

What we decide to build today, we construct upon cornerstones wisely laid by those who perused the truths of human reality and considered a new and radical way to safeguard the sanctity of the individual against the constantly encroaching influence of power and greed. As we proceed with forging new ideas and unique solutions for our own time, let us similarly seek out the oracle of truth that is human experience. Let us always recognize the conclusive and sacred nature of what was wrought before our time when that oracle was appealed to in good faith.

Justin Stapley is a student at Utah Valley University studying political theory and constitutionalism. He works part time as a research assistant at UVUs Center for Constitutional Studies.

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

Follow this link:

Guest: Experience, the oracle of truth | News, Sports, Jobs - Daily Herald

ByAllen C. Guelzo, Ph. D.,Gettysburg CollegeTo consider what other measures he should take, John Adams called for a special session of Congress in March 1797. (Image: John Trumbull/Public domain)Conflict with France

By 1796, the Reign of Terror in France had collapsed, and a five-person Directory now ruled the French Republic. The Directory regarded the Jay Treaty as a stab in the back of a fellow republic.They responded by declaring open season on American shipping, promising in a decree of July 2, 1796, that they would treat neutral vessels, either as to confiscation, as to searches, or capture, in the same manner as they shall suffer the English to treat them.

During the controversy over the British Orders in Council, Congress had authorized the construction of six large frigates for the United States Navy, only to suspend construction once the Jay Treaty was signed.

Now, in March 1797, Congress lurched ahead and authorized the completion of the first three of the frigatesthe United States, Constellation, andConstitution; and on March 25, Adams called for a special session of Congress to consider what other measures he should take. My entrance into office is marked by a misunderstanding with France, he wrote to his son, John Quincy Adams, which I shall endeavor to reconcile, provided that no violation of faith, no stain upon honor, is exacted.

This is a transcript from the video seriesAmericas Founding Fathers.Watch it now, on Wondrium.

In pursuit of reconciliation, Adams nominated a three-person commission. Together they were to negotiate with the French Republic for a removal of prejudices, a correction of errors, a dissipation of umbrages, an accommodation of all differences, and a restoration of harmony and affection.

But from the beginning, nothing went well for this mission. The Directory, with studied rudeness, kept the commissioners cooling their heels for weeks before granting them an interview with the Directorys sleazy foreign minister, the turncoat aristocrat, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord.

But Talleyrand had been receiving reports from the French consul in New York that France need be in no hurry to sign an agreement of its own with the United States. Mr. Adams, the French consul had been told, is vain, suspicious, and stubborn, but his presidency will only last five years; he is only president by three votes, and the system of the United States will change with him.

If the commissioners continued to press for an agreement, Talleyrand concluded that they ought to be willing to pay for itan immediate gratification of $240,000 to Talleyrand himself and a subsidy of $10 million to the Directory, in the form of a loan.

Learn more about John Jays Treaty.

The commissioners were dumbfounded by Talleyrands demand. The diplomatic back-and-forth dragged on into the spring of 1798 when finally Marshall and Pinckney gave up and broke off the negotiations; Gerry alone would remain in Paris to keep an American ear to the ground.

In Philadelphia, President Adams received his first dispatches from Pinckney, Marshall, and Gerry on March 4, 1798. The next day he sent a notice to Congress that they had been received and were being decoded from their diplomatic cipher. Despite mounting public demands for their publication, Adams wanted to be sure the commissioners were safely away from Paris before finally, on April 3, sending the dispatches to Congress.

Three days later, the texts were released to the newspapers, who reacted in anti-French fury.

Learn more about Timothy Dwights view on Christianity.

Adams had become the hero of the hour, and France the mortal enemy. Robert Treat Paine even composed a song, celebrating Adams and Liberty.

No actual declaration of war was issued, but naval combata Quasi-Warbroke out wherever French and American warships crossed paths. Nearly 80 French vessels were gobbled up by the American ships. In February 1799, the frigate Constellation, under the command of Commodore Thomas Truxton, fought and captured the French frigate Insurgente, and beat another, the Vengeance, into a helpless hulk.

Such a shock on the republican mind, admitted Jefferson, as has never been seen since our independence. Everywhere, Jeffersonian Republicans hid their heads, while federalism flourished as patriotism.

France thought of the Jay treaty as a betrayal by a fellow republic. So they decided to be hostile towards American vessels, either confiscating them, capturing them, or searching them.

The French government thought if they waited long enough for John Adams to leave office, they could deal with a different government in the U.S., which would be more to their liking.

After newspapers went into an anti-French fury and John Adams was recognized as a hero, federalism flourished in the U.S. A quasi-war also broke out between the two countries, although neither party had issued a declaration of war.

Read more here:

John Adams and France, and the Rise of Federalism - The Great Courses Daily News

Terming the Centres decision to extend the extended the jurisdiction of the Border Security Force (BSF) in Punjab as an insult to the state police and gross violation of the spirit of federalism, the Punjab Assembly on Thursday adopted a resolution seeking the withdrawal of the Centres notification extending the BSF jurisdiction.

The House unanimously passed the resolution rejecting the Centres order in the absence of the only two Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) members of the state Assembly.

The Union government had last month amended the BSF Act to authorise the border guarding force to undertake search, seizure and arrest within a 50 kilometer ( km) stretch, up from the existing 15 km, from the international border in Punjab, West Bengal and Assam.

The resolution was moved by Punjab Deputy Chief Minister Sukhjinder Singh Randhawa. It said, Punjab is a land of martyrs and the brave. Punjabis have made exemplary sacrifices in our Countrys freedom struggle and later on in the wars of 1962, 1965, 1971 and 1999 Punjabis have received the highest number of Gallantry Awards in the Country. Punjab Police is a unique patriotic force which has contributed immensely in maintaining the unity and integrity of the country, it said.

The resolution said as per the Constitution of India, maintaining law and order is the responsibility of the state government and for this purpose, the government of Punjab is fully competent.

The decision of extending the jurisdiction of BSF from 15 km to 50 km by the Union government is an expression of distrust towards the state police and the people of Punjab. This is their insult too. The Union government should have consulted the state government before taking such a major decision. The law and order situation in Punjab is totally under control. and there is no need to extend the jurisdiction of BSF, it said.

The resolution said this is a gross violation of the spirit of federalism enshrined in the Constitution of India. Extending the jurisdiction of BSF is also symbolic of petty politics. All the political parties of Punjab have unanimously condemned this decision of the Union government and have demanded the Union government should withdraw notification,.

Randhawa termed the Centres notification on extending BSFs jurisdiction an? attack on the federal structure. He also said that the House members should meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the issue.

Akali leader Bikram Singh Majithia told the House that the Congress-led government in the state should pass a decision that the Punjab Police would not co-operate with the BSF beyond 15 km.

Continue reading here:

Punjab Assembly passes resolution against Centres BSF order, calls it insult, violation of the spirit of fe - The Statesman

Looking to cement his legacy as a transformational president, President Joe Biden has poured most of his legislative priorities into one omnibus spending bill known as the Build Back Better plan. Initially proposed with a whopping $3.5 trillion price tag, progressive Democrats have had to compromise with the more moderate faction of their caucus, whittling the bill down to a meager $1.75 trillion framework.

Democrats hold a three seat majority in the House, and with Independent Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine caucusing with the Democrats, the Senate is essentially split 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking a tie. Since it is eligible to be passed in the Senate under reconciliation, Republicans cannot block a vote with the filibuster, enabling Senate Democrats to pass the measure with a simple majority and no Republican support.While Democrats work to craft a passable bill, considerable negotiating effort has been spent attempting to bridge the gap between progressive and moderate members of the Democratic Caucus. Such negotiations highlight the virtue of an overlooked yet fundamental principle of American government: federalism. In a country of more than 330 million people, it is nearly impossible to arrive at policy considerations that are acceptable to a broad swath of Americans, and it often feels impossible to create consensus between the national representatives of the American people. Such struggles are a feature of the American system, not a bug. House Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) summed up House progressives attitudes towards the Build Back Better plan when asked about the state of negotiations: there is too much at stake for working families and our communities to settle for something that can be later misunderstood, amended or abandoned altogether.

I do not doubt that communities in Representative Jayapals district care deeply about the elements of Build Back Better. After all, they ostensibly elected her to represent their interests. Fortunately, the American system already consists of governing bodies that legislate issues of concern to particular communities, namely the states. Members of communities elect legislators who are intimately aware of their concerns and who rule not in Washington, but in their own backyards. Negotiations do not take place between legislators representing vastly different economies nearly unrecognizable to one another but between those representing neighboring counties. This is not to suggest that all states are homogenous, but there is certainly more homogeneity within states than between them. State legislators are empowered to institute programs desired by the citizens within their jurisdictions. If citizens do not like the laws and programs of their state, they can move to another state that has not instituted such laws or programs.

The Constitution of the United States is a remarkable document that requires major decisions to take place at the most local level possible. It grants specific powers and jurisdictions to the federal government, leaving other powers to states and municipalities. Under the American system, if the community members from Representative Jayapals district want 12 weeks of paid family leave, they can elect state legislators and a governor who would institute such a plan, drawing taxes from and bestowing benefits upon those who support the proposal. If citizens living in Senator Manchins state of West Virginia do not want the same plans that Representative Jayapals constituents do, they are under no obligation to institute such plans.

During the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney was criticized for opposing health care regulation at the federal level that he supported at the state level while governor of Massachusetts. Far from contradictory, Romneys position demonstrated an understanding of the beauty of the American federalist system. States do what the federal government cannot and should not do. Rather than ram life-altering legislation through a 50/50 senate, Democrat senators should return to their states and encourage their constituents to contact their city counselors, state legislators and governors. If citizens of Vermont want government subsidies for hearing, dental and vision care, there is no reason that they should demand Alabama citizens follow in their footsteps. Vermonts government is perfectly competent enough to institute such subsidies at the state level.

Federalism allows for the needs of individuals and communities to be met by the legislators beholden to those individuals and communities. Instead of trying to negotiate a broad spending package acceptable to both New York and Nebraska, the federal government should allow each respective state to legislate themselves as it sees fit. Everyday life experience demonstrates that consensus is more easily arrived at among small groups than among large conglomerates. States and localities are better equipped to meet the needs of their citizens than 538 egotistic politicians in Washington, D.C. who represent economically and culturally diverse constituencies. If Biden wants to leave a positive legacy, he should praise the constitutional system rather than spend four years trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

Read more:

Reconciliation Bill Makes the Case for Federalism | Opinion | villanovan.com - Villanovan

The war in Tigray between Ethiopias government and Tigrayan rebels, which has unleashed untold suffering and brutality since it began a year ago, is now threatening to turn into a war of all against all, on a larger scale, because leaders on both sides have decided to double down in pursuing war in the name of ending it. This will likely bring about an irreversible state collapse, which would also have regionwide consequences. It appears that Ethiopia is reaching a stage where it cannot save itself.

If Ethiopia cannot save itself, someone else will have to. Ideally, it would be saved by East Africans, as West African nations attempted during the war in Liberia in the 1990s. But that seems unlikely right now.

The African Union (AU) has triedso far unsuccessfullyto mediate. In theory, the AU can threaten to suspend Ethiopias membership if there is no effort to resolve the conflict, but it is headquartered in Addis Ababa and is unlikely to upset its host. This leaves the international community. Historically, however, the international community has been reluctant to intervene in Africa before a crisis turned into a catastrophe, as was the case in Rwanda, Somalia, and the Darfur conflict in Sudan.

The war in Tigray between Ethiopias government and Tigrayan rebels, which has unleashed untold suffering and brutality since it began a year ago, is now threatening to turn into a war of all against all, on a larger scale, because leaders on both sides have decided to double down in pursuing war in the name of ending it. This will likely bring about an irreversible state collapse, which would also have regionwide consequences. It appears that Ethiopia is reaching a stage where it cannot save itself.

If Ethiopia cannot save itself, someone else will have to. Ideally, it would be saved by East Africans, as West African nations attempted during the war in Liberia in the 1990s. But that seems unlikely right now.

The African Union (AU) has triedso far unsuccessfullyto mediate. In theory, the AU can threaten to suspend Ethiopias membership if there is no effort to resolve the conflict, but it is headquartered in Addis Ababa and is unlikely to upset its host. This leaves the international community. Historically, however, the international community has been reluctant to intervene in Africa before a crisis turned into a catastrophe, as was the case in Rwanda, Somalia, and the Darfur conflict in Sudan.

The fact remains that only the West has the willingness and capacity to rescue the Ethiopian state from devouring its own citizensand eventually itself.

That said, the West cannot rescue Ethiopia without the cooperation of Ethiopias rulerswho at the moment are becoming increasingly angry at Western powers, particularly the United States. A new form of anti-Americanism seems to be rising in Ethiopiaone that uses state sovereignty as a shield. The government of Ethiopia wants its sovereignty to be respected; the United States wants Ethiopias government to stop killing its own people.

The source of anti-Americanism in Ethiopia is not ideological and is, therefore, a short-term phenomenon. It is connected with what the United States is perceived to be doing rather than what the United States is. At such a perilous moment, it is important for ordinary Ethiopians to understand why they should trust the West.

Likewise, to increase the chances of success in its peacemaking efforts, the West needs to appreciate both why Ethiopias rulers seem reluctant to compromise and the zero-sum and strongly emotional terms in which the issue has been framed. It is equally important for Ethiopians to understand why the West is concerned about averting the prospect of state collapse in Ethiopia.

The underlying frame of reference of the conflict in Tigray is the contrasting visions of two groupsthe Amhara and Tigrayan elitesabout the future direction of Ethiopia. The Tigrayan elites want to keep ethnic federalism, an administrative structure introduced by Meles Zenawi, who from 1991 to 2012 was the last Tigrayan ruler of Ethiopia (the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front remained the dominant party in government until 2018). The formula has enabled virtually all major ethnic groups, large and small, including the Amhara (27 percent of Ethiopias population), the Oromo (34 percent), and the Tigrayans (6 percent), to enjoy a measure of self-rule and cultural autonomy.

But the Tigrayan elites 27-year rule was widely regarded as repressive, and the rulers were driven out of power in 2018, largely by the Oromo youth known as Qeerroo. Subsequently, Abiy Ahmedan Oromoassumed power.

Amhara elites now want ethnic federalism to be abolished, because, to them, it undermines Ethiopias unity. But many Tigrayans, Oromos, and others view the governments apparent distaste for ethnic federalism with suspicion, as an attempt to restore or consolidate Amharizationthe cultural homogenization of Ethiopia in the image of the Amharaand, with it, the Amhara privilege that Meless idea of ethnic federalism presumably disrupted in the 1990s.

The Amhara elites have seemingly never forgiven Meles for this. But the Tigrayan elites (as well as Oromo nationalists) are adamant that they want more regional autonomy and representation at the center, not less. It is particularly ironic, therefore, that an Oromo prime minister, Abiy, should lead the Amhara side in the battle against the Tigrayan elites. At any rate, a segment of the Oromo, with their outspoken defenders behind bars, seems to have long given up on him.

Surely, there are no easy solutions to the civil war in Ethiopia. But the effort must perhaps begin from the recognition by Ethiopiansall Ethiopiansthat it is time for a paradigm shift. The interests of one ethnic group, regardless of its size, and Ethiopias interests are not always the same. Indeed, they can sometimes be antithetical. The revival and continuity of Ethiopia as a functioning state may hinge on the acceptance of these simple facts.

And Ethiopias Western friends can help the country as it tries to heal itself. Admittedly, the relationship between the West and Ethiopias government is now at a low point. The attitude of a segment of Ethiopias urban population toward the West is also negative. This was largely the reaction, in my view often unjustified, to the Wests position on the conflict in Tigray. Still, Ethiopians must ask themselves: Is anti-Americanism in Ethiopias interest?

Since the war broke out in Tigray, there have been debates about the West among at least three groups of Ethiopians. The first views the Wests motive in engaging with Ethiopia as neocolonial or conspiratorial. Decidedly anti-Western in their orientation and loud and vocal in their support of the Abiy government, most of the members of this group prefer to call themselves Ethiopians (although the vast majority of them are actually Amhara) and are heavily influenced by their own perceived ethnic self-interest.

The second group believes that the main goal of the West is to support Ethiopia to overcome the challenges it is currently facing. This is mainly composed of members of such groups as the Somali, and they liken the relationship between the West and Ethiopia to one between a benefactor and beneficiary.

According to the third group, the bilateral relationship is transactional, from which both sides benefit, albeit unequally. This group recognizes that the Wests policy is often driven by its values as well as realpolitik. Multiethnic in composition, this group is ready to live with any type of political arrangement in Ethiopia, ethnic federalism or a unitary structureso long as it is what the majority wants. It does not buy into the idea of a Western conspiracy against Ethiopia.

Another question Ethiopians should ask themselves and answer as a matter of urgency pertains to how to gauge whether the West is a genuine friend and supporter of Ethiopia.

The West is a friend of Ethiopia when its policies help to empower Ethiopians as a whole, not a particular ethnic group. At a minimum this means, under present circumstances, that the following three conditions must be met: the West is responsive to Ethiopias humanitarian needs in case of natural or human-caused emergency, the West shows the determination to hold accountable those who have violated internationally recognized human rights, and the West invests its resources in facilitating the resolution of conflicts. It is fair to assume that Ethiopians will eventually (preferably sooner rather than later) realize that the West is their ally, despite restrictions in the free flow of information.

The fact that the West is a friend of Ethiopia by the above objective measures should please Ethiopians. That Ethiopia is receiving so much sustained attention from the West should make Ethiopians feel flattered, not insulted, and understand that the West wants Ethiopia to succeed and become an exemplar for the rest of Africa.

If Abiy wants to keep Ethiopia, a multiethnic country of more than 100 million people, together, he will be better off embracing Western efforts rather than shunning them. Ethiopia cannot simply afford to alienate the wider Western world, particularly at this time. Ethiopias leaders can take the initiative to end the bloodshed and warmly welcome Western mediators, thereby also forging the foundation for a relationship of partnership in development and trade in the future. Doing so, ultimately, is in the interest of Ethiopias government, and, above all, it is in the interest of Ethiopians as a whole.

Ethiopia still has a chance of healing. But it doesnt have a lot of time to avert a bloody breakdown and Balkanization, followed by regionwide catastrophe.

Continued here:

Why Ethiopia Should Trust the West - Foreign Policy

By Jennifer Nicoll Victor, Ph.D., George Mason UniversityFederalism was one of the compromises made by the framers of the US Constitution. (Image: Dennis Diatel/Shutterstock)Being an American Citizen

Have you ever noticed that sometimes it seems like youre a citizen of more than one entity? If youre an American citizen, youre a citizen of your state, and you may have a sense of identity, loyalty, or affinity toward the state where you live. And this sense of belonging to a particular state may make it seem distinct from other states, even the neighboring ones with which your state shares a border.

But youre also a citizen of the United States of America and there is a separate set of associations you may make when you think about your identity as an American.

If it seems like there are separate levels of government all around, its because there are. The American system of government is known as federalism.

This is a transcript from the video series Understanding the US Government. Watch it now, on The Great Courses Plus.

Federalism is a system of government where sovereign power is divided between the national government and some other more local governments.

In the case of the United States, this is relatively straightforward. There is the national government made up of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and there are 50 sub-national governments, one in each state.

Sometimes the language used to talk about federalism is confusing because the people use the term federal government when they are referring to components of the national government, like the president or Congress.

However, the term federalism refers to the division of sovereignty between the national government and the sub-governments.

Learn more about the major types of government.

When we say that a unit of government has sovereignty, what is meant is that that unit has the ultimate governing authority.

In a democracy, when we talk about a unit of government having authority, what we often mean is that the people have given their authority to this unit. This may just seem like semantics, but its important for understanding where the source of power comes from in politics.

In a democracy like the United States, the sovereignty comes from the people. There is no god or king who asserts authority by some intrinsic nature and creates laws. Rather, it is the people who develop institutions to which they give power.

In the United States, that power is given to different units. Some authority is given to the states, some to the national or federal government, and some powers are shared between them.

When one thinks about why federalism developed in the United States, it is important to remember the historical context under which the institutions were created.

There was considerable conflict in America at the time the Constitution was written. The framers of the Constitution were arguing over everything from how to select the president, to how to divide representation in Congress, to who would hold the power of taxation.

In almost every instance of conflict, the framers came to a compromise that allowed them to agree on that segment of the Constitution. Federalism was one of these compromises.

Learn more about the concept of civil liberties.

It is important to recognize that the framers did not resolve all of their conflicts. Nor did they come to successful compromises to settle all of their disagreements.

Most notably, the framers did not settle their differences regarding slavery. Instead, the compromises that were put in place to address slavery were done in such a way that the framers could support the Constitution, but without resolving slavery.

For example, to determine how many representatives each state would have in the House of Representatives, they agreed to the 3/5 Compromise which counted each slave as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of counting the population. In this way, this compromise reflects the attitude held by many at the time that slaves were sub-human and deserved no natural rights.

The framers failure to adequately resolve conflicts over slavery is deeply tied to the creation of the federal system that remains in place today.

Because the economies and legal structures of southern states were developed around the practice of slavery, prohibiting slavery at the national level would have significantly impacted those states. Therefore, in an effort to maintain their way of life, the representatives of slave-owning states argued for the necessity of state sovereignty.

The desire of some southerners to preserve the practice of slaveholding explains a great deal about why federalism was so valued.

In the end, to achieve the larger goal of ratifying the Constitution, the framers accepted compromises on slavery and states rights. This trade-off set in place the conditions of political inequality that would lead to the Civil War, nearly 80 years later.

Learn more about congressional elections.

However, the preservation of slavery was not the only reason the United States became a federal system.

There were two other important reasons why the federal system was adopted. One is that federalism allowed government to more readily protect individual liberties. The other is that federalism created a built-in check on the powers of government.

Since many of the early settlers were drawn to the American colonies in search of greater individual liberties, protecting those liberties was very important to the framers of the Constitution.

To ensure these liberties could not be infringed upon by government, the framers sought to formalize their protection, as outlined in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. They describe all of the things that government cannot do to individuals.

The framers believed that when power is concentrated in a small group of people, it can threaten the liberties of everyone else. This is what the framers thought of as tyranny.

They believed tyranny could happen when a powerful person or small group of people have all of the control and authority, and they strip the rest of the people of their individual liberties.

In the framers minds, one way to prevent this from happening was to give two levels of government the ability to ensure and protect liberty. By setting up a sovereign authority at both the state and national levels, they created two places where government could act to ensure one was not becoming tyrannical over the other.

Federalism is a system of government where sovereign power is divided between the national government and some other more local governments.

To determine how many representatives each state would have in the House of Representatives, the framers of the US Constitution agreed to the 3/5 Compromise which counted each slave as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of counting the population.

The framers of the US Constitution set up a sovereign authority at both the state and national levels, and so created two places where government could act to ensure one did not become tyrannical over the other.

Read the original post:

US Federalism: Definition and Background - The Great Courses Daily News