Category Archives: Federalism

Federalism is the separation of power that exists between the states and the federal government. In America, the subject of federalism is one that comes up quite often. This is as a result of the constitution. The tenth amendment is in the constitution and it empowers the state government with any power that is not given to the federal government. There is always a conflict when dealing with the supremacy clause that is in the sixth article.

The clause got interpreted to imply that federal law exceeds state laws. So why is federalism important? We will take a look at some of the reasons why this system is much debated. The American constitution is such that it gives powers to the federal government far beyond the states. The constitution appears to be more concerned about what the states cannot do. Federalism is a system that separates governmental powers into state and federal governments.

Why is federalism important?

Federalism derives its importance based on politics. For instance, liberals believe that the Federal government ought to handle things more often than not. The conservatives think that the State Governments should be more involved in such matters. This implies that whenever liberals desire to do something such as education or healthcare, there would be a conflict. Federalism is also considered very important because it is often chosen for the wrong reasons. The major reason in this regard is for the protection of the centers where the wealth gets concentrated. This is as a result of the tendency to impede tyranny even though the problem does not end there. Federalism is also believed to impede democracy and obstruct populism also. This obstructive feature makes it be of great benefit to the rich minority and the oligarchs as well.

Federalism can get used in such a manner that it can lead to the destruction of democracy. It is important to note that the two systems may not get used because true democracy may only function within a unitary system of government. One other challenge with this system is that there is an absence of an accepted definition of what the word federalism implies.

The federalism practiced by America back then is quite different from what is currently obtainable. By default, the state governments were quite influential in their sphere while the same was the case with the federal government. The reach of power of each one was well defined and preserved. The reason for this is that there was some measure of apprehension about the possibility of a too strong central government. This made them view the federal government as a threat to their progress. This is the main reason why a limited federal government got created in the American constitution.

In the beginning, the federal government got fashioned to serve the state governments. The power of the federal government only reaches some points in this system of government.

There is a change in the way federalism is now practiced these days. The change has seen the state governments becoming servants to the federal governments. Also, the senate unlike before is no longer elected by the state representatives but by the people. This meant the removal of the most potent means of state sovereignty and autonomy. Also, because the federal has enlarged its coffers using income tax, it has been able to negotiate powers from states in exchange for federal funding. Also, the constant invasion of the state by the federal has made people accept the fact that the federal is superior to the states.

This has lead to a situation where the states have only succeeded in becoming not more than the administrative arms of the government.

In the system of federalism practiced in America, there are several merits and demerits associated with it. Here is a breakdown of what makes federalism in America:

The first merit of federalism is that it acts as a protection against tyranny. This system is such that ensures a spread of the powers among the three arms which all act as checks and balances to one another. This makes it the ideal system to check the excesses of people who may have dictatorial tendencies. The reason why American society does not accommodate tyrannical governments is that we run a system that does not give them the right breeding ground.

It also has the benefit of diffusing power in that the form of federalism which we practice here ensures that power gets divided into three different branches. This makes sure that all the power is not focused on a single individual. This prevents a situation where excess power gets into the head of whoever may be in power.

Also, federalism as a system ensures that there is efficiency in running the government. When some of the power gets shared among the different levels of government, it gives the states some room to resolve some of their challenges. One drawback of having a national solution to certain issues is that when implemented, they could be more effective in some states than others.

Federalism is one system that allows for increased citizens participation. The reason for this is that when power gets shared in levels, the citizens can influence policies, people who govern them and the likes. Also, federalism makes the management of conflicts quite easier. This is because of the flexibility in creating policies by states. This also means that people with different ideologies and approaches to issues can live in different areas. They can also come up with unique solutions. More often than not, such solutions may not be agreeable with people in other places.

Furthermore, there is the possibility of increased responsiveness of the state governments to the needs of the people. This is because the closer a government is to the people, the quicker and more effective its response would be to their unique needs. Also, the states would always be better disposed to responding to the needs of the people than the federal would be. Added to this is the fact that legal and policy innovations get encouraged in this system of government. The reason for this is that federalism allows different sets of policies per time. When doing this, the one found to be effective gets adopted in other states.

There are several reasons some people argue against federalism as the ideal system. We believed that it had a history of segregation and protection of slavery. This is because while slavery persisted, it could not get tackled on a federal level. Federalism is also perceived to breed inequality among the states that make up the country. For instance, under this system, funding for certain things like education would not be the same on a statewide basis. This means that some states would have to spend more.

There is also this belief that under federalism, states will seek to compete against themselves. They do this in the sense that they will seek ways to reduce certain benefits. This is usually done to encourage its residents to move to neighboring states. This thus causes a reduction in operational costs. Furthermore, some states may go as far as blocking Nationalist policies.

The supremacy clause is one of the most vital components of federalism. This is the part of the U.S. Constitution that states that federal laws and constitution are the highest laws of the land. The motivation for this clause stems from the fact that the creators saw the weakness that existed in the articles of confederation. They didnt want a repeat of the situation where the states were stronger than the federal governments. This clause is in Article 6 section 2 which defines the powers the federal government has and the one it doesnt. In a case where there is a conflict between the state and federal laws, the supremacy clause rises to invalidate the state law. This clause also ensures that the states cannot interfere with or control federal issues.

We have been able to establish that federalism comes with unique benefits. These benefits include the distribution of power, protection from all forms of tyranny. It also comes with increased citizens participation and effectiveness. We have also seen that it has some disadvantages. These include inequality among states, protection of segregation and slavery. There is also the obstruction of national policies by states. One thing established with this piece is that the merits of federalism far outweigh the perceived demerits.

You May Like These Articles As Well:

Head Of State Vs. Head Of Government: A Guide

Is Texas Bigger Than England? Comparing Texas With England, UK

Can A Felon Run For President?

Read this article:

Why Is Federalism Important? - The Freeman Online

AMAC Exclusive by David P. Deavel

This past weekend marked the end of the four days of celebration for the entire United Kingdom marking the 70th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth IIs reignan event likely to bring much commentary in the weeks and months ahead. And for this American who loves his country but has more than a bit of Anglophilia its been a thrill to be in the U.K. celebrating this grand ladys remarkable career. The dignity, gravity, and personal probity of Elizabeth II represents that older English understanding of duty, patriotism, sacrifice, and service that is both admirable and all too often lost in todays world. A true Christian, she radiates a resilience that goes beyond the mere proverbial stiff upper lip. As I stood on the bank of the Thames and watched British military planes in formation fly over Londonthe last of them trailing red, white, and bluein salute I couldnt help but be moved to greater love for the old queen, the mother country, and my own.

But its not just that the tough, lovable old monarch is admirable. Those traditional values that she represents are seen in another aspect of recent British life. In the 2016 Brexit vote many of us saw some of the same spark of independence and rebellion against the forces of the global and national ruling classeswho want to erase individual liberty and melt nations downthat were present in President Trumps 2016 electoral victory and his subsequent presidential action. Thats why it is disappointing even if it is not surprising that the Biden Administration has been giving the cold shoulder to the U.K. with regard to a trade agreementa shocking thing in light of what has been seen for almost a century as the special relationship between the U. S. and the mother country. Nevertheless, there are some good signs that the special relationship will continue, and if perhaps less so at the federal level for these next few years, then at least at the state level.

As the Heritage Foundations Anthony Kim wrote at The Daily Signal: Rather than standing still, post-Brexit Britainwhich has been securing groundbreaking, innovative trade dealshas proactively decided to move ahead on its own. What the U. K. has done is to engage in visits and direct talks with a number of states including Arkansas, California, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Texas, among others. And as a proud Hoosier native, Im happy to say that the first bi-lateral economic deal (albeit non-binding) signed was on May 27 with Indiana. Kim wants all 50 states to engage in more of these talks with our allies.

Its incredibly frustrating that the Biden Administration is not interested in talking to one of our allies, but as noted, its not surprising. For all the modern Democrats talk about democracy being in peril, all this means is that liberals are not getting their wayeven, or especially, when they arent getting their way because of a popular vote as in Brexit or the election of Donald Trump. Thus, a post-Brexit Britain is an entity that cannot be trusted to go along with whatever progressives in the U. S. and abroad say The Current Thing is. The only special relationships they recognize are the ones in which submission is given to them and the international groups they acknowledge as legitimately superior.

This attitude is not limited to Britain and other countries unfortunately. It is the same attitude they take to the American states that do not do what they want. Like the special relationship, progressives think federalism is really only about the absolute supremacy of the federal governmentat least when they are in chargeand those same international groups.

In addition to giving Britain a stiff-arm on trade, earlier this year the Biden Administration proposed 13 amendments to the International Health Regulations being pushed by the World Health Organization at their World Health Assembly meeting at the end of May. The amendments were all geared toward eliminating the approval and consultation of the State party in areas of public health. In other words, this was yet another push to end popular sovereignty on the pretext of saving lives. That these amendments were done in secret and only discovered by a researcher in April and opened for public comment in May indicates that the Biden Administration knew this was not something Americans or our allies would approve.

While they eventually withdrew 12 of the 13 amendments (all but one that allows the WHO to fast-track amendments), the WHO can continue to debate these amendments at hearings on June 16-17. They are also working on a separate Global Pandemic Treaty to be discussed in August. As Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver observed, . . .one amendment remains, the other 12 can return, and we know the WHO will hold more meetings on these amendments and on a new Pandemic Treaty that will vest considerable global power in this agency of the United Nations. Americas sovereignty is not for sale.

As with British trade, what has been cheering about this threat in the name of public health was that states were among the first to speak up. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis spoke up in a May press conference on the subject: We in Florida, there is no way we will ever support this W.H.O. thing thats not going to happen.

The special relationship may not be so special in the highest reaches of American government right now, but I think it has a good chance in the various American states where citizens and their governments are ready to trade with free peoples and stand up against the encroachments of international organizations to which we owe no obedience.

God save the Queen! God bless America! Im raising a pint to Elizabeth and the British people who said no to the EU today. And Im also raising one to the Hoosier state and the Sunshine state. May they lead the way in returning us to a situation in which we work together with the British People for good.

David P. Deavel is editor ofLogos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture, co-director of the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy, and a visiting professor at the University of St. Thomas (MN). He is the co-host of theDeep Down Thingspodcast. Follow him on GETTR @davidpdeavel.

We hope you've enjoyed this article. While you're here, we have a small favor to ask...

Support AMAC Action. Our 501 (C)(4) advances initiatives on Capitol Hill, in the state legislatures, and at the local level to protect American values, free speech, the exercise of religion, equality of opportunity, sanctity of life, and the rule of law.

Continued here:

God Save the Queen! The Special Relationship and US Federalism - AMAC

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Liberal leader says Franois Legault is trying to divide Quebecers and create tensions with Ottawa, while ignoring real problems.

Author of the article:

The CAQs recent recruitment of former sovereignist candidates shows Franois Legault plans to pick fights with Ottawa if elected to a second mandate, Quebec Liberal Leader Dominique Anglade warned.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Last week, the ruling CAQ party announced that former PQ minister Bernard Drainville will return to politics, to run for the CAQ in Octobers election in the Lvis riding near Quebec City.

Drainville was a PQ MNA and minister from 2007 to 2016. As a cabinet minister in the Marois government, he was responsible for the drafting of Bill 60 in 2013 better knownas the charter of values which proposed a total ban on religious symbols in the public sector.

The CAQ also announced over the weekend that former Bloc Qubcois MP and former Longueuil mayor Caroline St-Hilaire will run in the Sherbrooke riding.

Speaking Monday at the announcement of her own new candidate in the Notre-Dame-de-Grce riding, Anglade was asked about the CAQs new candidates. She said it shows Legaults fights with Ottawa are meant to distract from the governments dismal record on health care, climate change and the economy.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Were facing many crises, like inflation, climate change, housing, and Franois Legault is trying to pick a fight with Ottawa on false premises; hes trying to create his own crisis, Anglade said at the St. Raymonds Centre alongside new candidate Dsire McGraw and outgoing candidate Kathleen Weil. And by recruiting people that have been fighting for the separation of Quebec, hes sending a clear message. I dont think he wants to work with Ottawa.

She added that in passing Bill 96and Bill 21, the CAQ is trying to drive a wedge through Quebecers, while the Liberals would work on uniting the province. She called Drainvilles charter of values, which influenced the CAQs Bill 21, la charte de la chicane, in French, meaning a charter of squabbles.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Politics of division have no place in Quebec, Anglade said. Franois Legault wants to be the premier of certain Quebecers. I want to be the premier of all Quebecers.

McGraw also weighed in, saying the coming election will be a crucial one, and she believes Quebecers will reject the CAQs message.

Its a time when instead of focusing on real crises, this government is trying to drive us backward and create false divisions in Quebec and in our community, she said.

However, Economy Minister Pierre Fitzgibbon said last week there is no evidence the government is turning away from federalism.

The CAQ is neither sovereignist nor nationalist, Fitzgibbon said. We are working in the context of a federation we respect. I am federalist. I enjoy working with my counterparts in Ottawa. There is no danger of our caucus becoming sovereignist.

Anglade was also asked about the steady of stream of resignations from her party, as 13 sitting MNAs have announced they wont seek another term, nearly half the caucus. Anglade said its good news, because the party is in a period of renewal.

Yes, there are people leaving, but there are a lot of people coming, and thats the message were sending Quebecers, that we are renewing the party, Anglade said.

jmagder@postmedia.com

twitter.com/jasonmagder

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive daily headline news from the Montreal Gazette, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Montreal Gazette Headline News will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Here is the original post:

'I want to be the premier of all Quebecers,' Dominique Anglade says - Montreal Gazette

Here is the latest edition of the Political Line newsletter curated by Varghese K. George

Here is the latest edition of the Political Line newsletter curated by Varghese K. George

(The Political Line newsletter isIndias political landscape explained every week by Varghese K. George, senior editor atThe Hindu . You can subscribehereto get the newsletter in your inbox every Friday.)

Technology before and after 2014

Twice in two days, Prime Minister Narendra Modi proclaimed fidelity to science, and rationality. Not only that, he went a step ahead to point out that some of the secular opponents of his politics are actually purveyors of superstition and irrationality. He cited Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath who visits Noida, dismissing and disproving a long-held notion among UP observers that Chief Ministers who visit the place would lose the next election. His predecessors, Akhilesh Yadav and Mayawati, had avoided visiting the UP city that abuts the national capital, for fear of losing power, which any way they did! In a reference to Telangana Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao, who is trying to emerge as his challenger at the national stage, Mr. Modi said it was dangerous to have a person trusting more in superstitions and blind beliefs in power as they cannot do justice with a constricted point of view. I was once told in Gujarat not to visit a place as the CMs chair will go away, but I still went there nevertheless because I have faith in knowledge and technology, Mr. Modi declared on May 26. I want to see a drone in every farm, phone in every hand, he said on May 27, at an event that showcased drone applications.

According to Mr. Modi, before 2014 - that is when he became the PM - technology was working to the disadvantage of the poor, or at the very least, was perceived to be so. What changed the whole scenario in favour of the poor was his intervention, and now technology works to the advantage of the poor.

2014 as a historical cut-off point is a defining component of Mr. Modis politics. India is seeing a cultural revival since 2014, Home Minister Amit Shah said at a pre-release screening of the film Samrat Prithvirajthis week. Prithviraj had begun the independence struggle of India that lasted for a 1000 years, he said, adding 1947 and 2014 as two milestones in Indias progress towards freedom and progress. Incidentally, there are many more films in the pipeline that will recast Indian history, in service of the Hindutva project, ahead of the 2024 general election.

Unhappy Brahmins?

In Maharashtra and Haryana, Brahmins,at least a section of them, think it is time one of them became the CM. In Haryana, the BJP is in power. In Maharashtra the wishes for a Brahmin CM come from a BJP Union Minister.

Two dog-walkers and a rogue taxman: What their transfers say about Indian federalism

The Centre recently transferred two IAS officers, husband and wife, from Delhi, one to Ladakh and the other to Arunachal Pradesh, following media reports that the couple used to capture an entire stadium every evening for themselves and their dog.This is not something uncharacteristic of IAS officers, the backbone of Indias central bureaucracy. All India services remain an efficient instrument of the Centre to keep the regions in check, mirroring an imperial system that evolved before the Republic was born.

Zonal Director of NCB Mumbai Sameer Wankhede arrives at NCB office, in Mumbai.| Photo Credit: PTI

A flamboyant officer of the Indian Revenue Service (IRS), who shot tonational limelight by arresting the son of Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan, has been later found to have led a shoddy investigation by his department. He has now been transferred to Chennai.

Central Services officers enforce order and collect taxes -- two functions that the Centre wants to control more and more. The implicit message that the peripheries of the Indian Union are lesser than the heartland from New Delhis perspective was evident in these transfers.Officers posted in the northeastern State consider it as a punishment posting, though the more permissive nature of government spending in these border regions allows for opportunities for corruption. People in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh are not happy at being considered as dumping grounds for officers found unwanted in Delhi, and understandably so.

The Northeast was officially termed the frontier, and most of the region was under the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA) until the early 1970s.The regions relationship with the Centre,whether Imperial or Republican, remained in a flux.That continues to be a matter of negotiation. It is unthinkable to accept the Naga national flag as a cultural flag as hinted by the Government of India. The Naga national flag that symbolises Naga political identity is not negotiable,the National Socialist Council of Nagaland or NSCN (I-M) said recently.

On the one hand India, under the Hindu nationalist dispensation, is trying to precisely demarcate and tightly control the borders in the Northeast, but on the other, it is also trying to make it more open to commercial exchanges with neighbouring countriesis that possible? What happens when the Northeast, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar get more deeply intertwined? Each of them stands to benefit from more access, opportunities, resources and markets. These endeavours will literally bring ASEAN closer to us, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said recently in Guwahati in Assam.

The logic of neoliberal understanding of border it remains open for everything else but the movement of people- is tested in the northeastern region of India. People living in these border areas have close cultural and familial ties across political boundaries. The demarcations are difficult to enforce in a landscape that people have crisscrossed for centuries. The Chief Minister of Mizoram openly challenged a directive of the Centreto not welcome refugees from Myanmar. They are ethnically our Mizo brethren with whom we have been having close contacts throughout all these years even before India became independent, the CM wrote to the Centre last year.

Nitish turns the tables, again, on the BJP

Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar addresses a press conference after an all-party meeting on the caste-based census in the state, at Samvad Hall in Patna. RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav is also seen.| Photo Credit: PTI

The BJP and its alliance partner Nitish Kumar have been playing a cat and mouse game for a long time now. The BJP wants to corner Mr. Kumar and wrest the leadership of the alliance in Bihar, but it is not easy. Bihar is not yet ripe for an upper caste takeover as the BJP has managed in neighbouring UP. Mr. Kumar was made the CM in 2020 even though his party, the JD(U), won fewer seats than the BJP because he represented the OBCs. Two things are happening since then -- the BJP began to look for ways to clip his wings, and his popularity began to slide, dramatically. Mr. Kumar seems to have turned the tables on the BJP for now. He cornered the BJP into accepting his move for a caste count - a demand that the party has rejected nationally.In Bihar, that position would have been suicidal for the BJP. The last word on the BJP-Nitish equation has not been said yet though.

Subscribe here

Read this article:

Political Line | Technology and Hindutva; dog walkers and federalism; Nitish turns the tables on the BJP - The Hindu

Continued from yesterday

The campaign promises by many of the aspirants bidding for a presidential ticket betray insincerity or sheer lack of understanding of the fundamental dysfunction of the present governance system notwithstanding their so-called experience in governance. Indeed it is demonstrably a case of nemo dat quod non-habet.

The aspirants have been moving around to address delegates on their programmes. But what is not clear is whether such programmes derive from the manifestoes of their parties in which case one expects the delegates to interrogate the aspirants on specific matters rather than accept hook line and sinker amorphous statements such as fixing the economy, insecurity and sundry hackneyed issues.

Then the question, what is the general disposition of the delegates on the issue of governance? In light of the manifold challenges confronting the country, one would expect discussions on true federalism to address a number of issues notably, insecurity which calls for multi-level policing federal police, state police and local government police; local government administration which demands that local governments be a creation of states; power/electricity which calls for a multi-grid system and autonomy of states to regulate and manage electricity generation, transmission and distribution; census which calls for the power of the state to conduct census for effective planning; a natural resource which calls for state control and development of resources and to provide support for the central government in line with the principle of fiscal federalism.

These amongst others should be matters around which the views of presidential aspirants should be sought by the delegates. Regrettably, the press has not been helpful in this regard nor has it shown interactive sessions of aspirants and delegates for the benefit of citizens.

Still on the disposition of the delegates. If as it seems, the delegates can be compromised by pecuniary inducement from aspirants as quid pro quo, then it justifies the apprehensions about the 2023 presidential election, particularly the options, in candidates, that will ultimately avail the electorate.

There is a strident call by INEC for Nigerians to take possession of their voters card (PVC) and to exercise their civic responsibility by voting. Prior to the 2015 presidential election, many Nigerians were disenchanted by the arrogant and underperforming PDP and consequently yearned for a change of government. APC exploited it as its mantra.

Although the APC manifesto was robust on issues of governance and solution, particularly on true federalism, the flag bearer of the party did not campaign on the basis of the manifesto and therefore could not be held to account when he presented his three-point agenda economy, security and anti-corruption.

As we approach the next presidential election in 2023, the compelling question is, how equipped is the electorate to interrogate presidential candidates that will emerge in the days ahead, particularly since the bulk of the voting populace is not knowledgeable about the critical issues and how they affect them.

No doubt, as in 2015, Nigerians are desirous to have a government and a leader that will address the multitude of problems in the polity. There is a sense of hopelessness, and despair exacerbated by the attitude of the political class which smacks of insensitivity. This feeling needs to be assuaged by an assurance that 2023 holds the promise of a decisive change.

The press would do well to help the electorate in this regard to do due diligence in identifying a presidential candidate whose worldview is in sync with the yearning for a fundamental restructuring of governance in Nigeria and presenting him or her with the same verve and publicity as it was for President Buhari in 2015.

Concluded

Professor Eromosele is former deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta.

Go here to see the original:

2023 Presidential election: Issues and concerns - Part 2 Opinion The Guardian Nigeria News Nigeria and World News - Guardian Nigeria

The leaked Supreme Court memo suggesting that Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion might be overturned has been received with the anticipated deep division and controversy.

But might it actually be the beginning of an end to the abortion wars that have roiled American politics since the 1973 court ruling? The history of another issue that once deeply divided the nation the religious versus the secular, Catholics versus Protestants, urban versus rural suggests just that possibility, thanks to the safety valve provided by American federalism and localism.

The parallel worth considering is Prohibition, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which authorized Congress to prohibit the sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages. Today, the idea that what was known as the temperance movement would be politically potent and dramatically successful seems hard to believe. But so it was as compellingly described in Daniel Okrents history, Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. What had been a matter of states rights and local discretion became, with a change in the Constitution, a uniform policy for the nation.

That one-size-fits-all policy capped decades of political activism by now-obscure groups such as the Womens Christian Temperance Union and, especially, the Anti-Saloon League. But, just as with Roe, a uniform policy set off a long struggle to permit states and localities to make their own rules regulating alcohol. The 21st Amendment, repealing national Prohibition, restored that discretion. The result was the departure of the wet vs. dry wars from national politics.

It's instructive to compare the abortion rights and Prohibition movements as they were before, and might be following, an end to a national policy. Prior to national Prohibition, nine states were altogether dry, and 31 others had local option laws that permitted localities to go dry. Indeed, an estimated 50% of the countrys population was subject to alcohol prohibition. It was the ambition of the Anti-Saloon League to impose that preference on the rest of the population that made Prohibition such a potent political issue.

Similarly, legalized abortion was becoming increasingly common prior to Roe New York legalized the practice in 1970 but advocates looked to the court to hasten and universalize legalization. It may be hard to think abortion and Prohibition are comparable politically, but there is little doubt that the fact that New York Gov. Al Smith, the 1928 Democratic presidential candidate, hailed from a wet state contributed to his defeat (along with his Catholicism).

A uniform national policy that ignored regional cultural and religious differences proved unsustainable to the point that the next New York governor to run for president, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, would endorse an end to Prohibition but nonetheless win a resounding victory.

It is crucial today to note that the change in the Constitution did not lead to the legal sale of alcohol all across the country. Seven states, including long-dry Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kansas, remained dry, while many others permitted local option laws that allowed smaller jurisdictions such as counties to choose to be dry. This patchwork continues to the present day: 33 states allow localities to limit the sale of alcohol, and in three (Kansas, Tennessee, and Mississippi), dry is the default, absent a law authorizing alcohol sale. But, following the passage of the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition, the issue essentially disappeared from national politics.

It may seem impossible to believe that such an issue divided the country in ways comparable to abortion. But, as Dan Okrent writes, the Anti-Saloon League was the mightiest pressure group in the history of the country and, upon passage of its constitutional amendment, asserted that upon its taking effect, at one midnight past midnight a new nation will be born. At the same time, the anti-Prohibition New York World editorialized, After 12 oclock tonight, the Government of the United States as established by the Constitution and maintained for nearly 131 years will cease to exist. Yet just 15 years later, Prohibition made a hasty exit from national politics.

One can envision a similar course for the abortion issue. In 1970, three years prior to Roe, 20 states had already legalized abortion, most notably New York. It was arguably that steady movement toward debate and legalization that was cut short by Roe. And it seems inevitable that, were Roe overturned, we would see, as with the post-Prohibition era, a patchwork of state and local regulation.

Some will see that as select suppression of a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution. And, without a doubt, there were court decisions that overrode local practices that had positive results. One thinks here of Brown v. Board of Education, which put an end to de jure school segregation. Others, perhaps including the majority of Supreme Court members, will see it was the American federalist system finding a way to defuse political dynamite. As Justice Samuel Alito writes in the leaked opinion draft, It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the peoples elected representatives.

Its worth noting that today, there remains 10% of the U.S. population that lives in a dry county. But no state is entirely dry, and dry localities typically border those where alcohol is for sale. There are no entirely dry states, and though the National Prohibition Party continues, it has not, since 1976, received more than 10,000 votes. One can only wonder, and hope, that the abortion debate will reach a comparable equanimity with a post-Roe America.

HowardHusockis a senior fellow in domestic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, where he focuses on municipal government, urban housing policy, civil society, and philanthropy.

Continued here:

Could overturning Roe end the abortion wars? Yes, thanks to federalism - Washington Examiner

Federalism is the concept that is an integral part of our form of government. There are state governments, and there is the federal government.

The Constitution specifies powers and duties that the state governments have, and those that the national government has. Among the potential benefits of this arrangement is that the states can be essentially laboratories that experiment with concepts that if successful, other states and even the national government can then utilize.

For example, before there was an Affordable Care Act, the state of Massachusetts had a similar program for health insurance access and affordability. Who was the governor of the state at that time? Republican Mitt Romney. He ran for president and lost to ... Barack Obama. You know, the Obamacare guy.

In a similar way, there has been a multi-state experiment regarding the approach to controlling Covid-19.

Some states were aggressive in encouraging the employment of mitigation measures to reduce the spread of the virus. Other states were somewhat more passive, and still others were actually resistant to measures such as social distancing, mask wearing, and encouragement of its citizens to get vaccinated against the Coronavirus.

The data is in and the data show that those states that were less aggressive in instituting these commonsense mitigation measures did and continue to do worse than those states that more thoroughly instituted these measures.

On an international scale, Sweden was a classic example of how not to respond to a pandemic. The Swedish government basically decided on a plan of attaining herd immunity naturally acquired infections with no mitigation strategy.

When the infection and death rates soared way above those of neighboring European countries, Sweden changed course. When questioned about the initial strategy, the Swedish health minister said Vell, eet realllly vos a doomb idea (OK, I made up that last sentence for a little comic relief.)

Despite the overwhelming evidence that the less aggressive, laissez-faire approach has failed, have attitudes or approaches changed?Hardly.

When one looks at mortality rates among white individuals between the ages of 25 to 64 in 2020, there was a difference of 225% between the states with the lowest mortality rates and those with the highest. In 1999 that difference was 166% (which is still a significant degree of disparity).

The states with the lower mortality rates were the ones thatused and encouraged mitigation measures. And that trend is very likely to remain unchanged or to worsen given the politicization of the pandemic response.

This is exemplified in a Washington Post story about a health department worker, who has basically given up trying to convince people to get vaccinated because the effort is futile. Simply put, those who are eligible and have not been vaccinated simply are not going to do so, come hell or high water, irrespective of the data that shows that being vaccinated reduces infections, hospitalizations, intensive care, and death.

Much of this is due to disinformation, misinformation and politics. This is why a coordinated uniform national pandemic plan, adhered to by all the states,is needed for an adequate response.

A couple of years ago, I wrote an article that basically stated that finding fault and assessing blame was far less important than finding out how to contain the virus.

Well, as we are entering into what is hoped to be the endemic phase of the pandemic, now would seen to bean appropriate time to objectively assess what went wrong.

There are people who need to be held accountable and their errors, deliberate and otherwise, publicized so that we can learn from the mistakes that were made. We, as a nation, need a coordinated plan to deal with the next pandemic (this one isnt even over and yes, there will be more coming).

We need a national pandemic plan, not 50 state strategies, many of which were woefully inadequate. We know whats worked, we know what hasnt.

Not only is a national plan needed; a worldwide plan is also needed. Despite herculean efforts with multiple lockdowns which helped for a long time, New Zealand finally gave up trying to isolate from the rest of the world as it just couldnt keep the virus out.

One of the most isolated nations in the world, North Korea, is now reckoning with outbreaks of Covid. As long as there are countries that are not getting adequate vaccinations due to supply or logistics, new variants will keep cropping up and will eventually break through borders and barriers.

The writer practices Internal Medicine in Hampshire County. Opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the writer.

Continue reading here:

Federalism and the failed pandemic response | Columnists | hampshirereview.com - Hampshire Review

Why not leave abortion to the states?

One of the most common arguments made by those who want to downplay the significance of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.s leaked draft opinion in Dobbs vs. Jackson Womens Health is that it would not make abortion illegal. Rather, it would merely return the abortion debate to the legislative sphere, where it belongs. Individual states would pass their own abortion laws, as restrictive or nonrestrictive as their electorate wants them to be.

There is a certain soothing quality to that argument. But issues of individual rights bearing such heavy moral weight cannot be contained within state boundaries. Lets leave it up to the states will quickly become we expect other states to comply with our laws and will demand federal action to guarantee it and one only needs to look at the Fugitive Slave Act to highlight the very real constitutional challenge before us.

Slavery remains a moral stain on the history of the republic. It demonstrated the weaknesses of American federalism when faced with fundamental issues of human rights. Even as individual states chose different paths on slavery, the question of how to manage relations between slave and free states, and what to do about people who traveled across state lines, became a persistent problem. The Fugitive Slave Act, a revision of a 1793 statute enacted as part of the Compromise of 1850, aimed to offer a legal solution. It allowed California to enter the Union as a free state, but required all states, even those that did not allow slavery within their boundaries, to cooperate with the forcible return of escaped enslaved people.

Moral and legal complexities multiplied. There was the internal warfare of bleeding Kansas where pro- and antislavery militias fought for control of the territory, and the barbarity of the Dred Scott decision, which denied enslaved people human rights even if they lived in free states. Allowing slavery anywhere required protecting it everywhere. Subsequent compromises that favored popular sovereignty, allowing local majorities to endorse or reject slavery, never satisfied pro-slavery factions if they lost out, and antislavery states proved reluctant to help slave catchers.

Federalism did more to exacerbate regional divisions on slavery than solve them. This is the context for Abraham Lincolns proclamation that the nation could not continue half slave and half free. Indeed, when South Carolina announced its decision to secede in December 1860, its grievances included the charge that the federal government had not done enough to ensure that all states enforced the Fugitive Slave Act. Denouncing an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery, which led to a disregard of their obligations, South Carolinians claimed the northern states had essentially canceled the Constitution. By this logic, there could be no guarantee of any states rights unless other states respected and supported them. Enforcement of state laws could not end at the state line.

State legislation of abortion could easily create similar paradoxes, especially considering the mobility of people, ideas and goods in our globally linked world. Citizens in a state that bans abortion could travel to other states for the procedure, if they have the means. Gov. Gavin Newsom has made it clear that California will welcome out-of-state patients and Connecticut has already passed a new law protecting medical providers who treat patients from other states. Some large employers, such as Tesla, have recently signaled their willingness to support employees who need to travel to another state for medical care.

Yet the drafters of Mississippis abortion law did not go to all this trouble to overturn Roe vs. Wade just see it persist elsewhere. Texas antiabortion law already criminalizes aid to women who want an abortion does that include those who provide travel assistance to a more permissive state? What if a resident of a state that allows abortion has a medical emergency while visiting a restrictive state and cannot travel home?

Floridas recent struggle with Walt Disney Co. after its leadership spoke out against the so-called Dont Say Gay bill indicates how states might deal with businesses that challenge their abortion legislation. Furthermore, in an era when medication abortions already make up more than half of the U.S. total, what happens when a state forbids its citizens from ordering such drugs by mail or seeking consultations by telemedicine with a practitioner in a permissive state?

The paradox of states eventually demanding federal recognition and support for their particular laws applies to more than just abortion. In the 20th century, locale-by-locale alcohol prohibition led to a constitutional amendment (and then to its repeal); marijuana laws and gun rights raise similar problems today. States struggle to manage different local laws on issues with which people deeply disagree, as do citizens, especially if they regularly travel from one jurisdiction to another.

Federalism, which allows individual states to become laboratories of democracy by experimenting with different approaches to public problems, is one of the great strengths of our constitutional order. But the republic has to guarantee some baseline rights shared by all citizens, which imposes limitations on how widely states can diverge.

There are few options for resolving conflicts among state laws. The Constitution can be amended, which takes time and requires a great deal of consensus. Or Congress can pass national legislation. If neither happens the issue lands at the Supreme Court.

That was the reality that led to Roe in the first place, and it has not changed. Tossing the issue back to the states, as the Alito draft proposes, will not bring the country any closer to a resolution on abortion rights it will just open up 50 new fronts in the fight. The formal decision on Dobbs will not be the last federal word on abortion. This isnt the end of the controversy; were barely at the start.

Ronald J. Granieri is a history professor at the U.S. Army War College and a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. His personal opinion does not necessarily reflect that of the U.S. Army or the Department of Defense.

Continue reading here:

Op-Ed: Leave abortion law to the states? Just look at the Fugitive Slave Act to see how that will go - Los Angeles Times

In reaction to the volatile events of the last few weeks, both the stock and cryptocurrency markets have taken a deep dive. While this downturn is distressing to many, it has emboldened progressive politicians and activists whose motto is never let a crisis go to waste.

Critics of cryptocurrency have doubled down on their calls for heavy-handed regulation. They have seized on the struggles of stablecoin TerraUSD UST (UST), which has fallen from its $1 peg to its current price of around 8 cents. TerraUSDs instability is yet another reason we must closely regulate stablecoins and other cryptocurrencies, proclaimed Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown in a statement quoted by Politico.

Yet there are some important facts to keep in mind before we rush into panic-driven regulation. One is that TerraUSD appears to be an outlier among stablecoins cryptocurrencies pegged to hard assets such as the dollar and nearly all of the leading stablecoins have so far held their value.

As listed on CoinMarketCap as of this writing, the top stablecoins by volume and market cap including USD Coin USDC (USDC) and Pax Dollar (USDP) are staying at their price peg of $1 per unit. Paul Jossey, cryptocurrency attorney and adjunct fellow at my organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, notes that it is remarkable that so many stablecoins have proved resilient despite the dives in prices for stocks and ordinary cryptocurrencies.

Further, regulation that is arbitrary and overly burdensome actually adds volatility to the cryptocurrency and stablecoin markets. As I wrote in a 2019 paper on cryptocurrency, Protecting entrepreneurs from government overreach is important not only to ensure that society gains from beneficial innovation, but also to moderate the kind of volatility that arises from government intervention.

For instance, when China banned certain cryptocurrency exchanges in 2018, the price of Bitcoin BTC (BTC) dropped 10 percent in one day. When China declared virtually all private cryptocurrency activity illegal last September, Bitcoin dropped 5 percent and Ether (ETH) dropped 7 percent.

Arbitrary regulatory crackdowns in the U.S. have had similar negative effects on the cryptocurrency market. When the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) threatened various punitive actions against cryptocurrencies as an asset class in January and February of 2018, Bitcoins price plummeted by 36 percent.

Currently, the arbitrary regulation by enforcement in which the SEC deems cryptocurrencies as securities without authority from Congress or even formal rulemaking also creates uncertainty that weighs down the markets. As does the stifling regulatory framework for stablecoins proposed last fall in the report of the Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets (PWG) that would effectively limit stablecoin issuance to large banks.

The volatility in the crypto and stablecoin markets should indeed get the proverbial ball moving forward on regulatory policy, but with a focus on the right type of regulation. Policymakers should start designing a regulatory framework that focuses on disclosure and the prevention and punishment of fraud but otherwise leaves consumers, entrepreneurs, and investors free to make their own choices and take their own risks. They should also utilize the concepts of competitive federalism and competitive regulation to give stablecoin buyers and issuers the choice of a primary regulator.

Draft legislation from Senate Banking Committee Chairman Pat Toomey (R-PA) is a big step in the right direction. Toomeys Stablecoin Transparency of Reserves and Uniform Safe Transactions (Stablecoin TRUST) Act creates a regulatory framework that zooms in on disclosure and preventing fraud yet preserves and enhances competition and choice in the stablecoin market.

Under Toomeys bill, most stablecoin issuers would be required to disclose the precise assets that back the stablecoin and how the redemptions work. In return, the issuers could operate with their choice of primary regulator and with limits on the authority of other regulatory agencies over their businesses.

The bill allows stablecoin issuers to either choose a federal license from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or a money transmitting or other stablecoin-issuing license from a state. The bill also allows banks to issue stablecoins that meet the disclosure requirements if they create legal entities for the stablecoins separated from depositor funds.

Issuers who meet these requirements will be shielded from arbitrary actions by the SEC, as the bill explicitly bars the SEC from regulating these stablecoins as securities. This would greatly reduce regulatory uncertainty, as the SEC has taken the position that virtually any circulating cryptocurrency may be deemed a security and be subject to many of the regulations that have driven companies away from the stock market.

The bills giving stablecoin issuers the choice of receiving their licenses or charters from the federal government or the states is consistent with the system of competitive federalism envisioned by the Constitutions framers. As George Mason University Law Professor and CEI board member Michael Greve writes in his book Real Federalism, Real federalism aims to provide citizens with choices among different sovereigns [and] regulatory regimes.

My CEI colleagues and I have called for bolstering the optional federal chartering that exists for banking and utilizing it for small-dollar lending and insurance. Such a system would also be the best approach for regulation of the frontier industry of stablecoins.

It is especially important that the federal government not be the sole licensor for stablecoins given the dearth of its approval for new or de novo bank charters since the Obama administration. As I have written, the federal government only approved one new bank from 2010 to 2015, and only a handful since then. This type of bureaucratic backlog creates a risk of stagnation in an already troubled economy.

In uncertain and volatile times, created in significant part by government spending and shutdowns and lockdowns of businesses, its more important than ever to not add more chaos to cryptocurrency or any other sector with sweeping and unfocused regulation. Instead, policymakers must create regulatory frameworks that are stable applications of the rule of law.

John Berlau is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of the book George Washington, Entrepreneur: How Our Founding Fathers Private Business Pursuits Changed America and the Word

Former Competitive Enterprise Institute Research Associate Christian Johannessen contributed to this column.

Read the original:

Panic-Driven Crypto & Stablecoin Regulation Would Create Further Instability - Forbes

FRONT PAGE

SC: GST panel proposals not binding, can disrupt fiscal federalism

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: Economic and Social Development and Indian Polity and Governance

Mains Examination:

General Studies II: Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States, issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure, devolution of powers and finances up to local levels and challenges therein

General Studies III: Inclusive growth and issues arising from it.

Key Points to Ponder:

What is The Goods and Services Tax (GST)?

The Kelkar Task Force on the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act, 2003 and the Genesis of Goods and Services Tax (GST)

Goods and Services Tax (GST) and 101st Amendment Act, 2016-Know in detail

What are the different types of Goods and Services Tax (GST)?

Know the differences between Central GST (CGST), State GST (SGST), Union territory GST (UTGST) and Integrated GST (IGST)

How would a particular transaction of goods and services be taxed simultaneously under Central GST (CGST) and State GST (SGST)?

What are the benefits of Goods and Services Tax (GST) in India?

Goods and Services Tax (GST)-Issues and Challenges

GST Council and Article 279A of the Constitution-Key Provisions

GST Council and Members-Know in detail

What is the role of GST Council?

What is the nature of Federalism in India?

Important features of Indian federalism-Know in detail

The Constitution of India provides for a federal system of government, But the term federation has nowhere been used in the Constitution-True or False?

What Supreme Court of India said on Federalism in India in Union of India and Anr versus M/s Mohit Minerals Through Director case?

What observations did the Supreme Court made on the GST Council and on countrys federal structure? (Hint: Recommendations of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council cannot be binding on the Centre and states and many more)

Another definition of Federalism given by Supreme Court in todays Verdict-Federalism In India is a dialogue in which the states and the Centre constantly engage in conversations, and though the Constitution confers the Union with a higher share of power in certain situations to prevent chaos and provide security, the states can still resist the mandates of the Union by using different forms of political contestation

The relationship between two constituent units that are not autonomous but rely on each other for their functioning is not in practice always collaborative or cooperative-Decode the quote

Remember this Statement-The federal system, the court said, is a means to accommodate the needs of a pluralistic society to function in a democratic manner. It attempts to reconcile the desire of unity and commonality along with the desire for diversity and autonomy.

Decode the quote- Democracy and federalism are interdependent on each other for their survival such that federalism would only be stable in well-functioning democracies.

Competitive Federalism Cooperative Federalism and Fiscal Federalism are very much in news. What do you understand by these terms in Indian Scenario?

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

Explained: The SC ruling that GST Council decisions are not binding on Centre or states

12 Different Types of Federalism (with Examples and Pros & Cons)

The Paradox of Centralised Federalism: An Analysis of the Challenges to Indias Federal Design

After NGT notice, Govt forest panel seeks report on Arunachal projects

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: General issues on Environmental ecology, Bio-diversity and Climate Change

Main Examination: General Studies III: Conservation, environmental pollution and degradation, environmental impact assessment.

Key Points to Ponder:

Locate on Map: Dibang multipurpose project, Lower Subansiri hydel project, Etalin dam Project

Locate on Map: Dibang and Subansiri, Rivers (Source, Location etc.)

What do you understand by the term Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)?

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environment Protection Act, 1986-How they are related with each other?

Why Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is Important?

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and India-connect the Dots

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Rules Amendment, 2006-Key features

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification 2020-Key Highlights

Environmental Impact Assessment-Achievements, Issues and Challenges

Supreme court of India on Environment Impact Assessment (ex-post facto environmental clearance)

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

Cabinet set deadline for Ken-Betwa link before it got clearances in place

Ignoring green commitments: Weak political will, lack of a monitoring system

For safety of Gaganyaan crew, ISRO will simulate failure with abort missions

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: Current events of national and international importance.

Mains Examination: General Studies III: Awareness in the fields of IT, Space, Computers, robotics, nano-technology, bio-technology and issues relating to intellectual property rights.

Key Points to Ponder:

Gaganyaan Mission-Know the key features

Gaganyaan Mission-What makes this Mission very Unique?

Indias Manned Mission to Space-Know in detail

Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO)-About the Organisation

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

Gaganyaan: Second unmanned mission planned in 2022-23 followed by human spaceflight, says govt

Pvt players in space sector can boost defence, manufacturing

THE CITY

MCD merger: No clarity on staff status, functioning yet, say officials

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: Indian Polity and Governance

Mains Examination: General Studies II: Devolution of powers and finances up to local levels and challenges therein.

Key Points to Ponder:

Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2022-Key Highlights

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi Trifurcation in 2012

North Delhi Municipal Corporation, the South Delhi Municipal Corporation and the East Delhi Municipal Corporation-Know their role and functions

Unification or merger of the three Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCDs)-Opportunities, Issues and Challenges

What is the difference between Municipal corporation, Municipality, Notified area committee, Cantonment board, Township and Special purpose Agency?

Know in Detail-74th amendment act (Municipalities) and Articles 243-P to 243-ZG.

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

Explained: What the BJP hopes to gain by merging Delhis three MCD

Explained: What will change with the reunification of the MCDs in Delhi?

GOVT & POLITICS

Commitments on territorial integrity must be met: EAM

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: Current events of national and international importance.

Mains Examination: General Studies II: Bilateral, regional and global groupings and agreements involving India and/or affecting Indias Interest

Key Points to Ponder:

Ukraine-Russia War and its impact on BRICS?

India maintained its balancing act on Ukraine and Highlighted certain key points as it attended the BRICS meeting recently. what were they?

Evolution of BRICS from Russia-China (RC) to Russia-India-China (RIC) to Brazil- Russia-India-China (BRIC) to Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa (BRICS)

What is Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS)?

BRICS Development Bank-Key Features

Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) Economy-Key Features

RIC (Russia-India-China) out of BRICS-Significance and Stature in World Politics?

Why BRICS Matters?

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS)

Why BRICS Still Matters

EXPRESS NETWORK

Rlys, IIT-Madras to develop Hyperloop

Link:

UPSC CSE Key May 20, 2022: What you need to read today - The Indian Express