Thought question: A disagreement between states of the United States concerning the rights of states vs. the authority of the national government led to the Civil War. State governments were forced by war into a subservient position. What might happen if national governments ceded their authority to a world government by international treaty?
Answers
Answered by
18
The question of how power should be divided between the federal government and the states is really what American politics has been all about for well over two centuries. It is a question debated by delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, debated by Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the ratification period, and debated between and within our political parties ever since. Elections have been won and lost on this question, and a Civil War fought over it.
The Constitutional Convention undoubtedly was called to broaden the powers of the federal government as they existed under hopelessly ineffective Articles of Confederation. Yet, there was considerable disagreement among the delegates as to how extensive the powers of the federal government should be. The document produced in Philadelphia in September of 1787 reflects numerous compromises on the question of the rights of states and the powers of the new federal government. While the sovereignty of states was preserved in most respects, specific provisions were included limiting their powers (States were deprived of the powers to, for example, "impair the obligations of contracts," enact ex post facto laws, or pass bills of attainder). Most significantly, however, the Constitution in Article VI ("The Supremacy Clause") made any valid exercise of federal law (and the Constitution enumerated a long list of federal powers, including the broad power to regulate commerce) superior to any state law "to the contrary."
The Anti-Federalists opposed ratification of the Constitution. Their principal argument was that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government and took away too many powers of the states. They complained about the Supremacy Clause, about the powers of the President, about the six-year terms of Senators, and about the many new powers granted to Congress. Arguing for ratification were the Federalists, including such prominent figures as Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison (authors of The Federalist Papers). The Federalists saw the states as impeding the development of commerce (through imposition of state tariffs and other laws) and threatening private property (Rhode Island, for example, had enacted a law cancelling all debts). The Federalists saw a stronger federal government as critical to the United States taking its place as a leader on the world's stage. As a compromise necessary to ensure ratification, Federalists agreed to propose a Bill of Rights that would specifically limit the powers of the new federal government and would, through the Tenth Amendment, recognize 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."
During the presidency of George Washington, the issue of the rights of states moved front and center after the Supreme Court announced its opinion in Chisholm v Georgia (1793), holding that states can be sued in federal court for damages by citizens another state. The legislature of Georgia was so angered by the Court's decision that it passed a resolution declaring that anyone who tried to enforce it would be "hanged without the benefit of clergy." State officials in Georgia were not the only persons shocked by the Chisholm decision, and the result the 11th Amendment, effectively overruling the Court's opinion and limiting the power of the federal courts to hear such suits in the future. (The 11th Amendment has been more broadly interpreted later on to prohibit suits against states for damages in federal court even by the state's own citizens.)
The cause of the rights of states had its champions in the first decades of the nineteenth century, including Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, among many others. So did the cause of building a strong national government, with its champions including John Adams and the chief justice he appointed, John Marshall. Chief Justice Marshall's views were reflected in several important Court decisions broadly interpreting the powers of Congress under the "Necessary and Proper Clause" (McCulloch v Maryland (1819), upholding the power of Congress to create a national bank) and Gibbons v Ogden (1824), and upholding the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause to regulate steamboat traffic between the states.
u can make it from here
The Constitutional Convention undoubtedly was called to broaden the powers of the federal government as they existed under hopelessly ineffective Articles of Confederation. Yet, there was considerable disagreement among the delegates as to how extensive the powers of the federal government should be. The document produced in Philadelphia in September of 1787 reflects numerous compromises on the question of the rights of states and the powers of the new federal government. While the sovereignty of states was preserved in most respects, specific provisions were included limiting their powers (States were deprived of the powers to, for example, "impair the obligations of contracts," enact ex post facto laws, or pass bills of attainder). Most significantly, however, the Constitution in Article VI ("The Supremacy Clause") made any valid exercise of federal law (and the Constitution enumerated a long list of federal powers, including the broad power to regulate commerce) superior to any state law "to the contrary."
The Anti-Federalists opposed ratification of the Constitution. Their principal argument was that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government and took away too many powers of the states. They complained about the Supremacy Clause, about the powers of the President, about the six-year terms of Senators, and about the many new powers granted to Congress. Arguing for ratification were the Federalists, including such prominent figures as Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison (authors of The Federalist Papers). The Federalists saw the states as impeding the development of commerce (through imposition of state tariffs and other laws) and threatening private property (Rhode Island, for example, had enacted a law cancelling all debts). The Federalists saw a stronger federal government as critical to the United States taking its place as a leader on the world's stage. As a compromise necessary to ensure ratification, Federalists agreed to propose a Bill of Rights that would specifically limit the powers of the new federal government and would, through the Tenth Amendment, recognize 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."
During the presidency of George Washington, the issue of the rights of states moved front and center after the Supreme Court announced its opinion in Chisholm v Georgia (1793), holding that states can be sued in federal court for damages by citizens another state. The legislature of Georgia was so angered by the Court's decision that it passed a resolution declaring that anyone who tried to enforce it would be "hanged without the benefit of clergy." State officials in Georgia were not the only persons shocked by the Chisholm decision, and the result the 11th Amendment, effectively overruling the Court's opinion and limiting the power of the federal courts to hear such suits in the future. (The 11th Amendment has been more broadly interpreted later on to prohibit suits against states for damages in federal court even by the state's own citizens.)
The cause of the rights of states had its champions in the first decades of the nineteenth century, including Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, among many others. So did the cause of building a strong national government, with its champions including John Adams and the chief justice he appointed, John Marshall. Chief Justice Marshall's views were reflected in several important Court decisions broadly interpreting the powers of Congress under the "Necessary and Proper Clause" (McCulloch v Maryland (1819), upholding the power of Congress to create a national bank) and Gibbons v Ogden (1824), and upholding the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause to regulate steamboat traffic between the states.
u can make it from here
varshiniiii:
hi rafirocks
hi
tnq for following me
you're welcome
wt is u r name
Rafi Uddin Ahmed. and yours??
varshini
is that your real profile pic??
Answered by
2
Answer:
If the governments of each country delegate authority to the World Government by an international treaty, the situation will be as follows.
Explanation:
- If the governments of each country delegate authority to the World Government by an international treaty, the situation will be as follows.
- In this case, the government works very systematically and synchronously.
- All government and private employees will work for the development of the country.
- Sometimes the international government may be biased towards certain countries which may lead to down fall of the country.
#SP J2
Similar questions