Originally posted by aldo_14
Oh, and what's all this pullaver over federal and state government? I can understand a fear of dictatorship if central government has too much power (stemming, I guess, from the pre-rebellion time under British control), but doesn't it also indicate a complete lack of faith in central government? I've heard the US system of governing as (paraphrase) 'balanced chaos', and to be honest I can see the reason why.
aldo, the debate over state vs. federal power has been going on since before the Constitution was written, and in many respects, it's been the most historically influential element of our political system. After the American Revolution, colonial leaders worried about the possibility of a strong, centralized government taking control, since that was largely what they had fought against King George to escape from. As a result, they drafted the Articles of Confederation, which established a very loose federation of independent states. The states could go so far as to issue their own separate currencies, and the national congress had little to no power to enforce the laws it passed. After a series of disputes between states, many of the most influential leaders realized that something had to be done. Congress called for a national convention with the stated purpose of "revising" the Articles of Confederation to fix their problems. After a short time, however, the Framers realized that an entirely new system of government had to be established, and the Constitution began to take shape. Throughout the course of the convention, many of the most heavily debated issues involved the balance of power between state and federal governments. These are also incorporated into parts of the Bill of Rights.
Since then, the debate has continued; one of the most notable developments was, indeed, the Civil War, which was started as a challenge over a state's supposed right to secede from the Union; this war led the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, which the Supreme Court has used to "incorporate" certain elements of the Bill of Rights and hold them against the states. (The Bill of Rights was initially meant to apply against the federal government alone, since a strong federal government was what most of the Framers feared; most state constitutions already guaranteed most of the rights it laid out.) Even today, those who call themselves "conservative" in the traditional sense favor a smaller federal government and higher state autonomy, while those who call themselves traditional "liberals" favor a larger and more pervasive federal government. (This also ties into strict vs. loose constructionism, the debate over how much the Constitution should be "interpreted" to apply to current events.) In a way, this debate has helped our country, since it's made people aware of the importance of balance between the different levels of government.
As a footnote, I've always thought that the parliamentary system was rather strange; the idea that a government can just be dissolved or that elections can be held at any time seems to put too much power in the hands of those elected. I also think that separating the duties of chief of state and head of the executive branch ignores the necessary interplay that these two functions of leadership need. In my opinion, the knowledge that our elections, both federal and state, are regular, and that our elected officials have strictly set terms, is a good safeguard against one small group of individuals taking on too much power.
