0
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Rafa
Ross
EzraAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How was a confederation of states different from a federal system of government?
A confederation of states allows greater autonomy for the states involved than federalism does. In practice, both systems allow some degree of power to state governments and some degree of power to the higher level of government (whether we call it federal or confederate) but states tend to be more powerful in a confederate system. There would be different organization of areas of responsibility. In a federal republic the most of the law is uniform throughout all the states and provinces of the country and the states law deal with matters only that relate directly to them, while in a confederation there is no central code of law, each state or province has its own code of laws which are unique to the state and may be quite different from the other states. The American colonial system when governed by the Articles of Confederation lacked a central power to raise armies and make treaties. Tariff were also contradictory in the Confederation. Therefore a federal system has merit and the states via the central legislation still have immense input on tariffs and treaties.
What are 3 ways that the Constitution denies power to the National or Federal Government?
1. The Constitution denies some powers to the National Government in so many words - expressly. Among them are the powers to levy duties on exports; to deny freedom of religion, speech, press, or assembly; to conduct illegal searches or seizures; and to deny to any person a speedy and public trial, or a trial by jury. 2. Several powers are denied to the National Government because of the silence of the Constitution. Recall, the National Government is a government of delegated powers; it has only those powers the Constitution gives to it. Among the many powers not granted to the National Government are these: to create a public school system for the nation, to enact uniform marriage and divorce laws, and to set up units of local government. The Constitution says nothing that would give the National Government the power to do any of these things expressly, implicitly, or inherently. 3. Some powers are denied to the National Government because the Constitution established a federal system for the United States. Clearly the Constitution does not intend that the National Government should have any power to do those things that would threaten the existence of that system. For example, in the exercise of its power to tax, Congress cannot tax any of the States or their local units in the carrying out of their governmental functions. If it could, it would have the power to destroy (tax out of existence) one or more, or all, of the States.
Which of these individuals would be most likely to support the central powers?
People with far reaching business interests that would benefit from uniform and consistent rules and regulations. People that would supply goods to a strong central form of government would also benefit. This is a great example of 'one hand washing the other' in terms of the individuals helping the government and the government would help these individuals in return. A slow and gradual process that would evolve, grow and become more entrenched as time passed
In what three ways does the constitution deny powers to the national government?
First, the constitution denies some powers to the national government in so many words; expressly. Among them, congress may not levy duties on exports; prohibit freedom of religion, speech, press, or assembly; conduct illegal searches or seizures; nor deny to any person accused of a crime a speedy and public trial or a trial by jury. Second, several powers are denied to the national government because of the silence of the constitution. Powers to create a public school system for the nation, to enact uniform marriage and divorce laws, and to set up units of local government. Third, some powers are denied to the national government because of the federal system itself. Clearly the constitution does not intend that the national government should have any power to take action that would threaten the existence of that system.
Immigration law differs from country to country but not state to state?
Immigrations laws are generally federal laws, meaning they apply to all states. Federal laws apply to the entire country. Each country can have their own immigration laws. But in the US, immigration laws are federal, so the states cannot create their own laws with regard to immigration.
