- Discuss how and what extent U.S constitution governs and affects intergovernmental relation in the U.S. Discuss the tensions and conflicts between levels of governments.
The United States system of government started as an experiment of democratic government in 1776. Overtime, the United States’ system of government has been adaptable to change while retaining the original concepts or ideals (Cheney, 2012). Even though the United States is often classified as a democracy, officially, the land of the free and home of the brave is constitutionally a federal republic. The fact that the United States is a constitutional democracy alludes to the fact the United States government is governed on the premise of the constitution. The constitution thus provides the framework upon which the federal as well as the state government are structured. The term “federal” refers to the Union of the fifty states headed by a nationally elected president. The United States is also a “republic” because the ultimate power lies in the hands of the three hundred million Americans. The people elect representatives to speak on their behalf. At a glance, the functioning of the United States government is a cold-sandwich. However, this is not the case. The United States’ government is composed of the congress, the judiciary, and the presidency. In the United States, the power lies within the people who elect the president and the congress. The people get’s the opportunity to decide their representatives every four years courtesy of elections. Also, the United States constitution provides the blue print for the functioning of the system. The United States constitution was ratified in 1788 and provides three distinct arms of the government each with the powers to check the other. For example, the president appoints justices of the Supreme Court who are members of the judiciary. The appointed justices are then subjected for approval by Congress. In similar fashion, the Judiciary can upheld or strike down laws passed by the legislature if it deems it contrary to the constitution of the United States. The United constitution also protects the rights of the citizens through the bill of rights as contained in the first seven amendments of the U.S constitution (Tushnet, 2009).
The United States constitution also defines the relationship between the federal and the state government. The states have their separate constitutions and governments. In the U.S smaller states, power is devolved into the counties, cities, towns, villages, school districts as well as other levels that may be created by the said states. The Federal government retains special powers provided by the U. S constitution. Some of the powers bestowed by the federal government include regulating commerce between states, the responsibility of defending the United States against external attack, money distribution and creation, controlling of immigration as well as foreign policy. It is also important to know that the United States’ constitution has been amended overtime, and the function of the federal government has changed with time. Through working with states, the federal government created laws and programs that receive federal funding but are controlled from the state. Such services include provision of education, social welfare, housing, ensuring that the United States’ citizens have access to food, homeland security, transportation as well as response to natural disasters .
Because of this intricate relationship, the federal government has continually gained powers that it did not have before. For example, because of its access to transportation funds, the United States Federal government forced the states to reduce speed limits on the highway as a method of reducing energy usage. The manifestation of the federal power also happens in connection to the law making process. The local government is chartered on the consistency of the United States constitution. The laws made at the lower level, must reflect the laws at the federal government.
Before 1940s, the role of Federal government in the days of Presidents before FDR was largely undefined and mostly overshadowed by the political parties which were powerful. The aggressive political parties played the roles of Federal government. Because of the different interests of the parties and internal squabbles which rocked the parties, the Federal government was sidelined as the presidency was only a symbol of control but the real power lay in the hands of the party boss machines. In most cases the party’s aims were only to win the elections and not to define the outlined role of the central government. However, the role of Federal government was hugely changed in the Presidencies of Roosevelt and Woodrow. Roosevelt for example argued that the Federal government was not an agent of any particular interest but as the mediator of the public good and the president as the center of power. Woodrow controlled the executive powers and trusted very few individuals. He refined the function of the president as the most powerful player in the role the Federal government. However other factors such as the personality of the presidents, role of other interests groups, parties, congress, events, and the mass action played a greater role in defining the role of federal government.
The transformation of the role of federal government may have been to a small extent a function of the Progressives Movement. Under the Presidencies of Harrison, Cleveland and McKinley, the progressives had begun agitating for reforms which they felt affected the lives of ordinary Americans. Most of this was their distrust of the Standard Trusts and Corporations, Monopolies and the Protection tariffs among others. In a way this influenced the way in which the new presidents saw the idea of reforms. For example, Roosevelt’s at first, failed to see the importance of reforms, none the less he did not ignore the wishes of progressives. He favored progressives who argued for the regulation of the trusts. Similarly, he supported government control of the corporations in what he called the ‘new nationalism’. Woodrow finally accepted the complaints of the progressives who had wanted the elimination or reduction of the protection tariffs. He presented the progressives demands that came to be known as the ‘new freedom’ which finally changed the economic policies of the new America.
- Discuss the components of our federal system of government; describe one or more analytical models if you wish.
Perhaps one of the most complex systems of government is the principles behind federalism. Federalism bases on the concepts that the central government must not have control of all sectors in the nation. The states must control the powers and cede them to the federal government. While federalism is often championed for its ability to unify the country, it sometime causes problem such as the case of response breakdown in the Hurricane Katrina problem. For the sake of the operation of the federal government, several arguments have been proposed to channel the interaction between the federal government and the state governments. One such argument proposes that since power belongs to the people, government itself becomes the recipient of power and not the creator of power. Because of this reason, the government must have the littlest power possible. The Republican party mostly the Tea Party members champion this argument. The other argument often proposed by the Democratic Party champions the government as a central player in changing the lives of the ordinary. The argument is often on regulations
With the United States in its initial formative stages, a debate ensued on the model of government for the new republic. A two party system was then developed with two different ideologies. On one side of the coalition was the Federalist Party while the other party was the Republican- Democrats party. These two parties were distinct in philosophies accruing from the rival ideas of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. The Jeffersonian argued for a weak federal government with strong state and local government. They posited that a strong lower government would meet the needs of the populace better than a federated government with its base in Washington D.C. The Hamiltonians had a totally different view. The Hamiltonians argued for a strong Federal government with less delegation of power at the state and local governments. Hamilton saw the strong Federal government as an engine for the success of the commerce and industry. He argued that the masses were poor and unqualified for political trust ( Manseau, 2012).
Perhaps the famous believer in big government as opposed to limited government was Theodore Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt: He envisioned the Federal government not as the agent of any particular interest but as a mediator of the public good, with the president as the center. He was opposed to the principle of economic concentration, he favored progressives who urged regulation of the trusts, and he had the desire of the government winning the control of the activities of the trusts and the corporations. He invoked the Sherman Antitrust Act against a new railroad monopoly in the North West. Reform was not Roosevelt’s top priority during his years as the president; he was concerned with winning reelection, which required that he not antagonize the Conservative Republican Old guard. He skillfully dispensed patronage to conservatives and progressives alike to ensure that he easily won the nomination to the presidency. In his early life as a president, Roosevelt was largely conservative. Roosevelt’s New Nationalism believed in accepting economic concentration and using government to regulate and control it ( Berman, 2003).
Woodrow Wilson presented a progressive programme that came to be called The New Freedom which differed with Roosevelt’s New Nationalism. The major difference was in their approach of economic issues and the trusts. He believed that bigness was both unjust and inefficient, that the proper response to monopoly was not to regulate it but to destroy it. Wilson concentrated the powers of the executive branch in his own hands; he exerted firm control of the government in his hands. He also only delegated real authority whose loyalty to him was beyond question. His major success as a president was the lowering of the protective tariff which introduced real competition in American market and thus lowering the powers of the trusts.
The re-emergence of the federal government power was not limited to the presidency. The Supreme Court ruling also increased the power of the federal government over the state. Perhaps one classical example of this case happened in the judicial ruling in the Brown vs, Board of Education in 1954. The significance of the Brown vs. Board of education was significant in that it exposed how the long term effects of discrimination could not be tolerated any more. In 1954, in the Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, the court ruled for segregation of schools based on race. This rejected the 1896 ruling of Plessey Vs Ferguson which ruled against racial mix but gave the blacks the opportunity to have equal facilities with the whites. In the short run, the ruling created even more racial tension between whites and blacks but in the long run, it provided a base in which the blacks could use to demand for more reforms. Most importantly, it ruled that education would be controlled by the federal government and not the states.
- Describe the short term and long term effect of proposition 13 on local government and public services in California
Proposition 13 was a citizen’s initiative that created a limit on property taxes to a maximum of 1 percent of the assessed value of the property at the time of purchase. The annual tax increased attributed to the property were held to not more than 2 percent until the property is sold off. Furthermore, proposition argued for an increase in the participation of the masses for any tax increase. One proposal was for the tax increases to be approved by two thirds the legislature. The second part of the proposal reasoned for the involvement of the majority on special taxes levied on the masses by the public. The public would only allow the taxes to pass if it managed to garner two thirds of popular support. When this proposal was placed for a vote in 1978, majority of the public 65 percent voted yes in an election that witnessed a 68 percent turnout ( Moore, 1998).
It is not farfetched to argue that proposition 13 was a constitutional amendment. One of the effects of the amendment was the benefit that it accrued for property owners. First, there was the reduction in tax bills for most property owners. Second, there was the promise of the stability in the property prices thanks to reduction in taxes. However, proposition was not a all win situation, its legislation led to a dramatic reduction in the amount of local property revenue to due freezing of property taxes. This means that the public sector had limited sources for cities, counties and schools. In California, property taxes had been one of the most successful sources of funds for the local state governments. After the passage of proposition 13, local governments in California failed to provide services for the public through the property taxes. Currently, California provides their taxes through the state government which relies more on other taxes instead of property taxes. Focus has gone to sources of taxes on services provided to the public.
One of the most important effects of proposition 13 was that it led to a sudden shift of power from the legislature to the masses. In California, the state ballot has become more complicated with propositions increasing every other election. In the past decade, California listed about 95 propositions. Californians argue that it is a good thing that the public can make laws and change policy. Propositions 13 thus qualifies as one of the most important civic engagement experiments that did considerably well for the people of California. 71 percent of Californian’s are happy with the way the state has left power for the masses.
After thirty years of its passing, many Californians’ still think that the passage of proposition 13 was a good thing for their economy. According to a survey carried out by the PPIC, 59 percent of Californian’s reason that the passage of proposition 13 improved the lives. The support of the proposition is high across parties. However, property owners in California hold the biggest support for proposition 13. Some scholars have argued that California’s tax revolt was a function of emotion and frustration of the people on how the legislature managed their finances. It was a movement that was to have a profound impact on changing the structure of local government in California, cutting back government services, or forcing local government to devise ways of raising funds. It was a movement that would quickly influenced other states for populist efforts to cut spending ( Sextan & O’Sullivan, 1999).
However, the consequences of proposition 13 included adverse effects such as additional fees to drive through the city of LA parks, additional fees to attend museum exhibitions in San Diago, longer waits for books to appear in public libraries. It also means lower tax bills for some and higher ones for new neighbors buying the same house. Similarly, it also changed the way in which local school districts use money and carry out local services to the public.
References
Berman, D. (2003). Local Government and the States: Autonomy, Politics, and Policy. M.E. Sharpe.
Moore, S. (1998, July 30). Proposition 13 Then, Now and Forever. Retrieved October 12, 2013, from CATO Institute website: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/proposition-13-then-now-forever
Sexton, T, Sheffrin, S., & O’Sullivan, A. (1999). Proposition 13: Unintended Effects and Feasible Reforms. National Tax Journal, Vol 52(No1), 92-112.
Toole, L., & Christensen, R. (2012). American Intergovernmental Relations, 5th Edition. CQ Press.
Tushnet, M. (2009). The Constitution of the United States of America: a contextual analysis. New York: Hart Publishing Limited.
Cheney, Ian. (2012). "The Election of 1796: Jefferson vs. Adams." Construction Magazine July 2012: n. pag. MastHead. Web. 4 Dec. 2012. <http://www.constructionlitmag.com/politics/election-2012/election-1796-jefferson-adams/>.
Cunngiham, Noble. ( 2000) Jefferson vs. Hamilton: Confrontations that Shaped a Nation. New York: Macmillam, Print
Manseau, Peter. (2012) "Is This the Nastiest Election Ever?" The New York Times [New York] 27 Sept. 2012: n. pag. Web. 4 Dec. 2012. <http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/is-this-the-nastiest-election-ever/>.
