Federalism

 The concept of federalism makes sense not only for the reality our founding fathers lived in, but also in the reality of America today. Our founding fathers had a personal experience with what it felt like to have a government where the national government's decisions were end all be all. There also seemed to be a lot extra steps for the colonists to feel heard by the British and even then, the British used the colonist more for their own benefits rather than giving the people the colonies of a voice. What took place may have been inevitable; the colonies had space away from the British rule and in turn were able to learn how to self govern even before the constitution was thought of. The ideal to make sure the voice of local government had a voice that could affect national choices makes sense and the idea that a national government still needs to exist to keep the American government strong was a great solution. America's choice to adopt federalism still is applicable today; as the text stated, our country is bigger than most, federalism allows such a vast country that has a melted pot of people to govern themselves in a way where one group doesn't have the ultimate voice. The voice of the people is what allows a democracy to thrive and remain a democracy. From personal experience, I can say that our states can feel like countries within themselves; though I grew up in California, I have a lot of family in Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin. I've spent a lot of time in all four places and the lifestyle, political perspective, and attitude towards certain social standards is very unique to each state. One of the drawbacks is that because states and local governments do have a powerful voice, it can slow down the national government from making decisions that may be in society as a whole's best interest. The other part of having strong local and state governments is what I previously mentioned; there is a lack of uniformity between states and it can result in laws/regulations in different states conflicting with eacother. 

The powers given to national government and/or state governments are outlined in the constitution. The text points out that though there is a outline written in the constitution, the outlines are still vague. The supreme court has to use their own critical thinking on how to interpret the constitution best; the states and national government have directly expressed powers and then the powers not defined allow the state and government have implied power. When it comes to local powers and their relationship it surprised me that the state government can veto any regulations created by local governments in their state. I was also shocked to learn how grants really worked. I never thought about how they could be used as bargaining chips as well as cause chaos rather than harmony. The example that stood out the most to me was the No Child Left Behind program; I remember when that was applied at my elementary school and I remember my parents getting notice about it. I also didn't realize as a child or even later upon reflection that these regulations forced schools in districts that were financially struggling to have even more financial instability to try and meet the national program's requirements. To me that seems inherently flawed, and if a national program beings, the national government wouldn't be working in the people's best interest by causing a local and state government stress. To me , it sounds like a good way for the national government to manipulate states the way the text suggested they already do with money. 

The constitution is open ended however I think though it can potentially lead to misuse of power the ideal was to allow elected officials that would be an accurate reflection of the peoples voice and would in turn interpret the constitution in the peoples best interest. The goal of federalism I believe is to facilitate the process of democracy.