Skip to main content

How does federalism work to prevent tyranny?

Federalism was based on the idea that a concentration of power in a central government would lead to tyranny. This was because political power, when exercised locally, was subject, and therefore more responsive, to the will of the people. For this reason, many Americans in the 1780s were wary of ceding too much power to a central government, preferring to invest state governments with the powers of taxation in particular. Yet many Americans were also convinced that the decentralized government created by the Articles of Confederation was insufficient to meet the needs, especially the fiscal needs, of the nation. Federalism was seen as a compromise. It created a supreme central government which could exercise some exclusive powers, like coining money and waging war. Yet state governments also had some powers, which included taxation, held concurrently with the national, or federal government. Some powers, like licensing and supervising elections, were even held exclusively by the states, which also played a major role in presidential elections through the electoral college. So by reserving some powers to the states, the Framers of the Constitution sought to curb tyranny even as they invested the new national government with unprecedented powers.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.