People keep talking about “Federalizing the National Guard” and now you’ve got other States pledging their NG to Texas in defiance of the Supreme Court (see image).
So is this what CW2 looks like?
P.S. I’m a Brit
People keep talking about “Federalizing the National Guard” and now you’ve got other States pledging their NG to Texas in defiance of the Supreme Court (see image).
So is this what CW2 looks like?
P.S. I’m a Brit
All of the recent news surrounding Texas tells me we need to return to a more literal reading of the 10th Amendment. Bring back dual federalism.
Neither an American nor knowledgeable about constitutional and amendment law - would you mind elaborating please?
Context: The United States government has a federal structure, unlike most governments. This means that the federal/national government and the state governments have distinct divisions in power and responsibility. For example, the highest level of law enforcement that can legally exist is at the state level. Rogue Supreme Courts have made illegitimate and tyrannical rulings to grant the federal government some police power, even though the Constitution and Bill of Rights clearly reserve police power to the states.
That only the states have police power was implicitly understood prior to the ratification of the Tenth Amendment, the final amendment in the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment states that whatever powers and rights are not expressly granted to the federal government in the Constitution shall be reserved to the states or to the people. Since police powers are not expressly granted to the federal government, only the states may enforce laws. Again, illegitimate rulings by rogue Supreme Courts have granted this power to the federal government with no legal basis.
Dual federalism is this divide between the power of the federal government and the state governments. Over time, especially since the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, dual federalism has been eroded without meaningful constitutional amendments. Most people are generally satisfied with this, but when a state has significant differences with the federal government on the enforcement of the law or on matters of authority, the easy solution without having a civil war is to return to the state that which rightfully belongs to it: The powers implicitly reserved to it by the Constitution.
Other than those illegitimate Supreme Court rulings, only Texas has the authority to enforce border laws in Texas. The federal government, technically speaking, has no authority to enforce border laws anywhere, unless a constitutional amendment is ratified granting it such power.
Most large countries have a federal structure. Just from my memory, Canada, Mexico, Brasil, Germany, Spain, Italy, Nigeria, South Africa, the UAE, Russia, China, India, Indonesia and Malaysia at least.
Isn’t this just normal federalism?
The vast majority of governments around the world are not federal. However, it is a popular system in countries that have diverse territory and demographics.
From Wikipedia:
If you grew up in the United States, it stands to reason that dual federalism would be the default form of federalism to you. Also, since the 1930s, the 10th Amendment has been largely (and illegally) ignored, so today we mostly experience “marble cake federalism”. The way the Constitution is written, however, does not legitimize any form other than dual federalism with distinct and separate powers granted to the federal government and the states.
Thank you. I guess my country has a mix of these, depending on subject.
Thanks for explaining this. Your wording has a distinct bias of American exceptionalism, since your first sentence is patently incorrect - federal and unitary governments are roughly evenly represented across the world’s 200-odd governments. Not an attack, just a reasoned criticism, which may help explain the downvotes.
I was interested to learn about dual federalism and Eisenhower’s layer- and marble-cake metaphors. I didn’t realise that dual federalism was distinct, as I’m not a constitutional lawyer and am primarily familiar with Australian federalism and secondarily those of the US and Canada. In retrospect it’s unsurprising that the Australian federal system can be described with the layer cake metaphor, since our federation in 1901 was based on the American model!
It’s an interesting observation about the layer cake system, where states have primacy, becoming a marble cake, where constitutional law has been (probably deliberately) overlooked in the US over the years. It reminds me a bit of the gerrymandering and malapportionment issues, not to mention the electoral college systems affecting fair and open democracy in your country.
Good luck with it all - your insights will help me keep a keener eye on Australian developments to slow Australia’s slide towards the corruption of the fine American model. As seen in the (alarmist and fearful) question posed by the OP, the decay of democracy happens slowly until it becomes utterly obvious to most that the rot has spread throughout.
Thanks for your response. I am currently taking an American government course in my university and in the class it was explained that relatively few countries have federal systems. The Wikipedia page on the topic only lists 20 countries that currently have federal systems.
I’m always looking for more knowledge and information, so I’m curious what your source is that around 100 countries have federal systems of government. It seems like a large discrepancy from the information that I am aware of.
Yeah, it’s definitely alarming. The fact that the US government has basically given itself power that it’s not supposed to have freaks me out a bit whenever I think about it. Something for citizens of any country to watch out for.
Fair enough - I knew I should have supported that claim. An earlier commenter did, listing many - my claim probably represents a lot of countries with larger populations and/or enough wealth to support regional representative government. It may not be the majority - smaller countries like Tonga and Eswatini are notionally unitary monarchies, but I’d still be surprised if there weren’t chiefs on each island or in each significant town or region in most countries. It’s harder to qualify - my claim probably comes from looking at a world map and seeing 50-50, but it’s probably Mercator projection and recognition bias (I may be able to name all countries and their capitals, but not the ins and outs of their government systems, given it gets murky).
Again this is an unsupported gut feeling, but this is what corrupt countries do, and I was going to say the US is nearly the only ‘marble cake’ democracy but I suppose people might be able to say “what about the Democratic Republic of the Congo?” which everyone knows is neither democratic nor a proper republic, but a barely-functioning government representing a large and valuable area of land easily manipulated by richer countries for its wealth. I suppose what I mean is that the US has, at least until recently, been the country most others and commentators sycophantically praise as a true democratic marble cake federation, when it is not truly democratic, it’s just wealthy, and that wealth is held by oligarchs in the same way as federations like Russia or Brazil.
Maybe my point wasn’t valid. Maybe it was a gut feeling. I don’t know any more, I’m just a downtrodden man.
Oh, that makes sense. You’re not talking specifically about countries with federal systems of government, you’re talking about countries that have any form of local government in addition to a national government. That’s technically not federalism, but I see what you’re talking about.
Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about this:
According to the textbook my American Government class uses (We the People, 14th Essentials Edition by Ginsberg, Lowi, Tolbert, and Campbell), less than 15% of the world’s countries use federal systems.
deleted by creator