Checks and balance in US government

The governmental concept of the separation of powers was incorporated into the U.S. Constitution to
ensure that no single person or branch of the government could ever become too powerful. It is
enforced through a series of checks and balances.

Specifically, the system of checks and balances is intended to make sure that no branch or department
of the federal government is allowed to exceed its bounds, guard against fraud, and allow for the timely
correction of errors or omissions. Indeed, the system of checks and balances acts as a sort of sentry over
the separated powers, balancing the authorities of each branch of government. In practical use, the
authority to take a given action rests with one department, while the responsibility to verify the
appropriateness and legality of that action rests with another.

History of the Separation of Powers

Founding Fathers like James Madison knew all too well—from hard experience—the dangers of
unchecked power in government. As Madison himself put it, “The truth is that all men having power
ought to be mistrusted.”

Therefore, Madison and his fellow framers believed in creating a government administered both over
humans and by humans: “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next
place, oblige it to control itself.”

The concept of separation of powers, or “trias politics,” dates to 18th century France, when social and
political philosopher Montesquieu published his famed "The Spirit of the Laws." Considered one of the
greatest works in the history of political theory and jurisprudence, "The Spirit of the Laws" is believed to
have inspired both the United States Constitution and France's Declaration of the Rights of the Man and
of the Citizen.

The model of government conceived by Montesquieu had divided the political authority of the state into
executive, legislative, and judicial powers. He asserted that ensuring that the three powers operate
separately and independently was the key to liberty.

In American government, these three branches, along with their powers, are:

 The legislative branch, which enacts the nation’s laws

 The executive branch, which implements and enforces the laws enacted by the legislative
branch

 The judicial branch, which interprets the laws in reference to the Constitution and applies its
interpretations to legal controversies involving the laws

So well-accepted is the concept of the separation of powers that the constitutions of 40 U.S. states
specify that their own governments be divided into similarly empowered legislative, executive, and
judicial branches. 

Three Branches, Separate But Equal

In the provision of the three branches of governmental power into the Constitution, the framers built
their vision of a stable federal government, assured by a system of separated powers with checks and
balances.

As Madison wrote in No. 51 of the Federalist Papers, published in 1788, “The accumulation of all
powers, legislative, executive, and judicial in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and
whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of
tyranny.”

In both theory and practice, the power of each branch of the American government is held in check by
the powers of the other two in several ways.

For example, while the President of the United States (executive branch) can veto laws passed by
Congress (legislative branch), Congress can override presidential vetoes with a two-thirds
vote from both houses.

Similarly, the Supreme Court (judicial branch) can nullify laws passed by Congress by ruling them to be
unconstitutional.

However, the Supreme Court’s power is balanced by the fact that its presiding judges must be  appointed
by the president with the approval of the Senate.

The following are the specific powers of each branch that demonstrate the way they check and balance
the others:

Executive Branch Checks and Balances the Legislative Branch

 President has the power to veto laws passed by Congress.

 Can propose new laws to Congress

 Submits the Federal Budget to the House of Representatives

 Appoints federal officials, who carry out and enforce laws

Executive Branch Checks and Balances the Judicial Branch

 Nominates judges to the Supreme Court

 Nominates judges to the federal court system

 President has the power to pardon or grant amnesty to persons convicted of crimes.

Legislative Branch Checks and Balances the Executive Branch

 Congress can override presidential vetoes with a two-thirds vote from both chambers.

 Senate can reject proposed treaties with a two-thirds vote.

 Senate can reject presidential nominations of federal officials or judges.

 Congress can impeach and remove the president (House serves as prosecution, Senate serves as
jury).
Legislative Branch Checks and Balances the Judicial Branch

 Congress can create lower courts.

 Senate can reject nominees to the federal courts and Supreme Court.

 Congress can amend the Constitution to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court.

 Congress can impeach judges of the lower federal courts.

Judicial Branch Checks and Balances the Executive Branch

 Supreme Court can use the power of judicial review to rule laws unconstitutional.

Judicial Branch Checks and Balances the Legislative Branch

 Supreme Court can use the power of judicial review to rule presidential actions unconstitutional.

 Supreme Court can use the power of judicial review to rule treaties unconstitutional.

But Are the Branches Truly Equal?

Over the years, the executive branch has—often controversially—attempted to expand its authority
over the legislative and judicial branches.

After the Civil War, the executive branch sought to expand the scope of the constitutional powers
granted to the president as Commander in Chief of a standing army. Other more recent examples of
largely unchecked executive branch powers include:

 The power to issue executive orders

 The power to declare local and national emergencies

 The power to grant and revoke security classifications

 The power grant presidential pardons for federal crimes

 The power to issue presidential bill signing statements

 The power to withhold information from Congress through executive privilege

Some people argue that there are more checks or limitations on the power of the legislative branch than
over the other two branches. For example, both the executive and judicial branches can override or
nullify the laws it passes. Though they are technically correct, it is how the Founding Fathers intended
the government to operate.

Conclusion

Our system of the separation of powers through checks and balances reflects the Founders’
interpretation of a republican form of government. Specifically, it does so in that the legislative
(lawmaking) branch, as the most powerful, is also the most restrained.

British Cabinet
introduction      
The British cabinet composed of ministers, selected by the Prime Minister
amongst the members of the Parliament and mostly from the House of
Commons. They are formally appointed by the British Monarch. They are
individually as well as Collectively Responsible before the parliament.
Cabinet is that organ of the state which controls the whole political system of
United Kingdom.
All Legislative, Executive and Financial powers are enjoyed by British Cabinet.
Throughout the 19th Century, Parliament was supreme in Legislative as well
Executive powers, but 20th Century witness enormous increase in the powers of
Cabinet. Followings are the factors responsible for dictatorship of cabinet.

party rigidity In UK there is two party system, each party having its own policy and agenda. Party
discipline is observed very strictly.  Voting against the party is regarded as breach of
party discipline for which a person can be excluded from the party, which means a
political murder for that person.

dissolution When cabinet loses the confidence of the HOC, either they will resign or the P.M
will ask the sovereign to dissolve the parliament and announce fresh elections.
power of the No one want re-election neither the Govt. nor the opposition.
PM

delegated Parliament passes a law in general terms and the details are left to be filled by the
Cabinet.
legislation

Administrative In UK Cabinet ministers have given the power to decide and resolve cases
concerning their department.
adjudication

rules of Rules and procedures regarding the business of Parliament are prepared by the
Cabinet.
procedure

national Parliament has given extra-ordinary powers to Cabinet while during a National
Emergency situation.During the 1st and 2nd World Wars these emergency powers
emergency were granted to Cabinet to handle Economic and Political problems

powers and function

executive
The Cabinet formulate and implement domestic as well as foreign policy for UK.
It makes all important appointments n Foreign States and receive Ambassadors.
Queen declare War and Peace, Conclude treaties on the advice of Cabinet.
Similarly Queen recognize new states on the advice of Cabinet.
All administration of the whole country works under the leadership of Cabinet.
Cabinet coordinate the work of different department.

Legislative Queen summon and prorogue sessions of the parliament on the advice of cabinet.
The power of dissolution of the House of Commons lies with the Cabinet.
It prepares rules of business for the parliament.
All the bills passed by the parliament are signed by the Queen on the advice of Cabinet.
 Even the policy statement given by the Queen is prepared by the Cabinet.

financial Cabinet is the custodian of British purse.

It prepares the annual budget for the country.
No money bill can be initiated without the prior approval of Cabinet.

judicial Queen appoint judges of the courts on the advice of Cabinet.

Lord Chancellor, Head of British Judiciary is a member of Cabinet.
The Queen exercise the power of pardon, general amnesty on the advice of British
Cabinet.
The concept of Administrative adjudication.

Features of Cabinet System

1. Membership of the Parliament:

All the members of the Cabinet are supposed to be the members of either House of the
Parliament.

2. Political Homogeneity:
As the Cabinet has to work as a team, normally like-minded persons are included in it so as
to preserve political homogeneity. Even if differences arise, these are resolved within the
meetings and are not let known to the public.

3. Coordination between Government Branches:

Close cooperation between cabinet and parliamentary majority is inevitable. Hence the
Cabinet controls not only administrative policy-making but also has firm grip over
legislation.

4. Queen’s exclusion from Cabinet Meetings:

According to long-standing convention established in 1714, the Monarch does not
participate in Cabinet meetings and these are presided over by the Prime Minister. The
latter informs the Monarch about all important decisions.

5. Responsibility of the Cabinet:

a) All ministers are legally accountable to the Queen and as such they remain in power at
the pleasure of the Ruler.

b) All ministers work in close collaboration and work as a team. Every minister has the right
to advise his Cabinet colleagues even on maters relating to the departments other than
those of his own.

c) Politically, Cabinet is accountable to the Parliament which means that ministers remain in
power so long as they command the confidence of the majority in the House of Commons.

6. Collective Responsibility:
The Cabinet is collectively accountable to the Parliament. It means that every minister is
responsible for all the decisions taken in Cabinet meetings and every minister shares this
responsibility.

7. Secrecy in Meetings:
All the proceedings of the Cabinet meetings are kept secret and the differences within the
Cabinet are not let known to the people. The differences, if leaked out, can possibly be
exploited by the opposition.

8. Ascendancy of Prime Minister:

All the members of the Cabinet stand on equal footing; the Prime Minister, however,
performs pivotal role in the functioning of the Ministry. He coordinates the work of different
departments.

Dictatorship of the Cabinet

It is a general impression that the Cabinet has assumed almost dictatorial powers in British
political system on account of its firm grip over executive and legislative decision-making.
Instead of accountability to the Parliament, it actually guides and controls the parent body.

1. Party Discipline:
Under a parliamentary setup, the life of a Cabinet depends on the discretion of the
Parliament. Ministers remain present on the floors of chambers of the Parliament to defend
their policies. The legislators control the executive through different techniques such as
asking questions, moving adjournment motions and resolutions and through criticizing the
policies. But the members of the majority party always support the Cabinet due to strict
party discipline.

2. Rules of Procedure:
The rules of procedure within the House enable the Cabinet to consume most of its time and
control the agenda even at the cost of private member’s initiatives. Most of the bills which
are transformed into laws come from government side.

3. Fiscal Control:
Control over finance is the most effective weapon by virtue of which Cabinet can implement
its policies effectively.

4. Delegated Legislation:
Legislative role of the Cabinet is not confined within the Parliament only; it rather makes
rules and regulations necessary for the enforcement of statutes. Hence through its power of
Delegated Legislation, the Cabinet can interpret statutes according to its own liking.

5. Increased State Activity:

Modern welfare state has increased sphere of its activities, which has indirectly resulted in
enhancing the role of the Cabinet. Administrative heads of departments have been given
certain quasi-judicial powers in Britain.
Control of the Parliament over the executive branch has actually become ineffective since
the former can advise the Queen to dissolve the Parliament and hold fresh elections.
According to Bagehot, “The Cabinet is such a creature which can destroy its creator.

Reforms of Ataturk (Kamalism)

Historical Background:
Turkey remained citadel of the grandeur of the Ottoman Empire for many centuries in the
past. Its pristine hegemony declined gradually especially during nineteenth century.
Western imperialism through intrigues and diplomatic techniques infused disruption in the
Muslim Ummah with the object to destabilize and annex Muslim territories. The secular
and the anti-Islamic elements got organized under the banner of Arab Nationalism in
pursuance of their own goals.

During World War I, Turkey was an ally of Germany. Its territorial integrity got setback as
a result of defeat in the World War. Consequently, it lost not only its dependencies in the
Middle East, but was deprived of certain purely Turkish territories at the hands of the
western nations. Some of these parts of Turkey were liberated by the Turkish forces under
the command of Kemal Ataturk. He became the national hero and got developed the cult
of his personality. Imprints of his thinking later dominated and shaped the socio-political
life of modern Turkey.

Ataturk introduced multi-dimensional changes in all spheres of life for the purpose of
national reconstruction and development. These reforms aimed not only at the material
advancement but focused at the nourishment of progressive thinking and inculcation of
new secular values as well. He was deadly opposed to the adoption of conventional life
style which reflected religious thinking. Consequently, Ataturk initiated anti-religious
policies in order to uproot the conventional attitudes and stagnation. An important step in
this direction was the shifting of the capital from Istanbul to Ankara.

Ataturk was elected by the Grand National Assembly as head of the state and invested
with absolute powers. He pronounced the following principles as the basis of the new
order: Republicanism, Secularism, Turkish Nationalism, Revolutionary reforms and
ascendancy of the popular will. He introduced various reforms in pursuance of these
declared objectives.

1. Secularization:
Anti-religious activities were encouraged during the Secularization of the society while
whole process of revolutionary changes under official patronage, explicitly manifested anti-
religious trends. Turkey was declared a secular state and Islam discarded as state religion
in 1928. The long-standing traditional institution of “Khilafat” was also abolished which
symbolized the unity of Muslim Ummah. The last Ottoman Caliph was put in exile and on
3rd March 1924, the abolition of Caliphate was approved by the Turkish Grand Assembly.
Sunday was replaced by Friday as weekly holiday; all religious institutions and Madaras
were deprived of official patronage and denied financial grants.

Arabic script got substituted by Latin One in 1928 while many constraints were put on the
promotion and publication of Arabic literature. It is to be noted that the Constitution of
1945 was written in Latin Language. The so-called progressive elite and self-styled
intellectuals attributed all ills of the contemporary Turkish society and the miseries
confronted by the people to religious past of Turkey.

2. Changes in Legal System:

In his drive for Europeanization of the society, Ataturk abolished the whole system of
Shariat Courts and replaced Shariat laws with European code. Civil law of Switzerland was
adopted and given name as Turkish civil code, replacing Muslim law of inheritance, family
laws and other aspects of personal law. The Criminal Law of Italy and Commercial Law of
Germany were assimilated in the respective codes of Turkish Law. The principle of “Rule of
Law” borrowed from British Legal System, however, ensured to some extent, the
protection of fundamental rights.

3. Direction of Social Change:

The cultural patterns and lifestyle of the Turkish Society was remodeled. Women folk were
ensured equal rights in all walks of life with men and their active participation in public life
encouraged. They were recruited in civil services on large scale. They were required to
wear Western dress and discard “Burqa”. Polygamy was disallowed. The wearing of
traditional dress by Turkish men was discouraged and many constraints were put on it.
They were not allowed to wear Turkish cap. All the government servants were ordered to
wear European dress along with hat. European calendar replaced “Qamri” calendar. During
this drive for secularism and modernism, Ataturk was fully supported by the military while
the secular elements and so-called progressive intelligentia also sided with the regime.

4. Economic Development:
Economic system, under “Malukiat”, of course, remained stagnant, hence resulting in
unfair distribution of wealth and economic backwardness. None of the positive steps could
be taken in the field of trade and industry whereas the contemporary Western civilization
had made tremendous advancements in the field of science and technology. Ataturk paid
special attention to the issue of economic uplift of the society and introduced reforms in
industry and agriculture. A comprehensive economic planning was launched aiming at the
improvement ion the commercial and agricultural output. Mineral resources were exploited
and divergent schemes, attracting investments in industry floated. Certain big industries
were put under state ownership. Barter system was encouraged as a principle in respect of
extending trade links with other nations.

5. Administrative Reforms:
State administration was remodeled on modern lines and central governmental control
made more effective. For administrative convenience, the whole territory was divided into
new provinces, districts and in other small administrative units. The role of civil-military
bureaucracy was imperative in promoting administrative output. Nevertheless,
bureaucratic elite adopted European life style with full orientation to Western values and
became allergic of oriental values. This class vehemently executed all reforms in letter and
spirit with a missionary zeal.

6. Changes in Political System:

Ataturk paid much attention to the promotion of national solidarity, attainment of political
stability and adopted a policy of administrative centralism. In foreign affairs, he acted on
the principle of Peaceful Coexistence and the promotion of good relations with other
countries. His main concern was the promotion of internal peace and advancement in all
directions. Turkey under Ataturk, strengthened ties of friendship even with those Western
European countries who has been its enemies during World War I. the same policy was
adopted in promoting cordial relations with countries of Eastern Europe.

Political system remained autocratic under Ataturk as he ruled arbitrarily. The opponents
were crushed and their political activities banned. Religious elements, specifically became
the target of brutality of the ruling Junta, as they were deprived even of their fundamental
rights. Anti Islamic policies were enforced in the guise of secularism. They consciously
obstructed the way of all such efforts as indicated policy of revulsion to religious past.
__________________
Kon Kehta hy k Main Gum-naam ho jaon ga
Main tu aik Baab hn Tareekh mein Likha jaon ga

The Following User Says Thank You to Arain007 For This Useful Post:
aristotlekhan (Thursday, February 01, 2018)
  #2  
 Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Turkish Constitution

The intention of the Framers of the constitution was to ensure political stability and
promotion of domestic tranquility and for this purpose they envisaged a quasi democratic
structure that would suit to the needs of Turkish society. Hence people’s expectations and
requirements of stable order are judiciously integrated within the framework of the
constitution. Parliamentary system has been reinforced under a strong Presidency. Multiple
party system has been allowed under the constitution, and constitutional protection
provided to public liberties.

Salient Features

Preamble:
The constitution of 1982 is a lengthy document comprising 177 articles divided into seven
chapters. According to the Preamble, this document truly manifests the aspirants of the
Turkish nation and the values and beliefs based on Kamalate culture legacy. Turkey has
been declared a modern secular polity in which religious beliefs have nothing to do with
politics. The constitution ensures the protection of fundamental rights to all without any
discrimination, while Turkish language has been declared as official language.
1. Supremacy of the Constitution:
The constitution recognizes the sovereignty of the popular will which finds its exposition
through established institutions. The constitution stands paramount and it ensures national
independence, its solidarity, democracy, peace and tranquility.

2. Amendment in the Constitution:

The constitution is partly flexible and partly rigid in the sense that different procedure is
required for constitutional amendment, than the one adopted for alterations in statutes.
The Grand National Assembly is authorized to initiate proposals for amending the
constitution with the support of its one third members and can be ratified by two thirds
majority. It is worth pointing out that the reforms introduced by Ataturk, which are
regarded as the ideological and cultural legacy of the Founder, are exempt from
alterations. Some of these are, for instance secular educational system, wearing of hat by
men, banning “Derveish Madaras” the presence of state officials at wedding ceremony,
preservation of Turkish manuscript, prohibition of the use of such titles as Afandi, Pasha
etc.

3. Balanced Separation of Powers:

The constitution stands paramount hence it is the source of all authority. Grand National
Assembly is the supreme legislative organ while executive powers belong to the President
and the Council of Ministers. The President controls on the one hand, the Council of
Ministers and holds, somewhat superior position over the Prime Minister. He can exercise
even such administrative powers in collaboration with the Cabinet, as are normally
exercised exclusively by the Cabinet within a parliamentary form of government. The
President also plays vital role even in legislation. He can not only block the way of
legislation rather is authorized to dissolve the National Assembly.

All judicial powers are assigned to the courts established within the constitutional
framework. A comprehensive and well-knit distinct system comprising military and
administrative courts operate side by side with the normal state courts. Hence a balance
has been maintained between the requirements of traditional parliamentary patterns and
the features of autocratic military rule.

4. Parliamentary System:
The system of government in one sense can be termed parliamentary as the Prime
Minister and other ministers are taken from the National Assembly and are held
accountable to it and to the President. The latter is fully authorized to remove any of the
ministers. The Cabinet is collectively accountable to the National Assembly.

5. Unicameral Legislature:
Turkish Grand National Assembly has been indefeasible part of its political legacy. It was
on the basis of its religious decree (Ijma) that Ataturk had pronounced the abolition of
“Khilafat”. Its central and pivotal position has been preserved within the present
constitutional setup as well. National Assembly is elected for a period of five years, which
can be extended or minimized under extraordinary circumstances. Apart from its position
as the supreme law-making body it is vested with the power to control the executive, as
most of the ministers are its members. The Assembly also ratifies the treaties made with
foreign governments.

6. Judicial System:
The constitution ensures the independence of courts and the judges are given security of
service in addition to many other privileges. Proper safeguards have been provided to
preserve the integrity and dignity of judges. The courts exercise the power of judicial
review over all actions of the administration.

7. Rights and obligations:

A list of fundamental rights has been incorporated in the 2nd part of the constitution. The
underlying philosophy of fundamental rights has been made subservient to the
requirements of justice, fair play and secular ideology of Turkey. The enforcement of
fundamental rights can be suspended partially or completely, as the circumstances so
demand, during a period of emergency, mobilization, war or Martial Law. Some of the
important fundamental rights are: right to life, personal security, security against
servitude, right to privacy, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, freedom of
conscience and press, right to form associations, hole public meetings, organize
demonstrations within the limits of law, right to private ownership, right to earn one’s
livelihood etc.

8. Right to form Political Parties:

The constitution recognizes the right of all citizens of 21 years or above to form political
parties and join or leave their membership. Nevertheless, only such political parties can be
formed as pledge to adhere to secular ideology and promote national solidarity. Formation
of a new political party is subject to the permission granted within the limits of law. Parties
are required to observe rules and norms provided in the Political Parties Act, hence no
party can be formed on the basis of religion. Every political party is registered entity which
is not permitted to give financial help nor receive from any trade union or interest group.
The constitutional court is fully competent to make decision regarding banning any political
party.

9. Proclamation of Emergency:
Under the circumstances of acute political unrest or economic disruption, emergency may
be proclaimed in any part or in the whole of the country. The Council of Ministers can
make as announcement to this effect. Such Proclamation shall be valid for a period not
exceeding six months.

10. Imposition of Martial Law:

To incorporate provisions regarding the possibility of imposing Martial Law within
democratic constitutional framework is a peculiar feature. Turkish constitution provides
that under extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the civil government, Martial
Law may be imposed. Hence the President in the Council of Ministers can announce this
step for the whole of the country or any part thereof for a period not exceeding six
months. Such a pronouncement is required to be submitted before the National Assembly
for its approval and in case it is not in session, special session shall be convened. The
latter is fully competent to make alterations in the period of its enforcement or repeal it.
__________________
Kon Kehta hy k Main Gum-naam ho jaon ga
Main tu aik Baab hn Tareekh mein Likha jaon ga

  #3  
 Friday, June 17, 2011

Grand National Assembly

Grand National Assembly holds a pivotal position in the working of the Turkish political
system. It is organized on the established norms of a parliamentary setup and enjoys the
position of a supreme law making body on the one hand, while performs the function of
controlling the executive authority on the other. It elects the persons for top positions such
as the President, Prime Minister and other ministers.

Composition:
Grand National Assembly is a unicameral legislature consisting of 550 members. All
members are directly elected by the people by secret ballot on the basis of adult suffrage.

Duration:
Duration of Grand National Assembly is five years subject to alteration under extra
ordinary conditions. It will, however, be four years after the next parliamentary election.
The Assembly is authorized to decide by the majority vote about the holding of fresh
elections prior to the completion of its prescribed duration.

Powers and Functions

1. Legislative Powers:
The primary function of the Grand National Assembly is to enact new laws and make
alterations, whenever required, in the existing laws. The ministers introduce most of the
bills on the floor of the assembly and actively participate in the process of law-making.
They normally remain present on the floor of the chamber to defend their policies and pilot
the bills through the legislative routine. Grand National Assembly may delegate the power
of issuance of decrees to the Council of Ministers. Such decrees hold the validity of law so
long as these remain operative. A law passed by the Assembly which authorizes the
executive to promulgate decrees, shall also specify its scope, duration and underlying
principles.

2. Control over the Executive:

All the members of the Council of Ministers participate in the deliberations of the
Assembly. They have to answer the questions asked by the members. The Assembly can
effectively control policy process by asking questions, moving resolutions and different
motions. Parliamentary inquiries are a useful device to check the autocratic trends of the
executive. The Assembly enjoys the most effective power to pass a no confidence motion
against the Cabinet and remove the ministers from the office.

All the treaties made with foreign countries and declaration of war, got to be ratified by
the Assembly. The Grand National Assembly is fully authorized to allow the use of army in
respect of fulfillment of treaty obligations or those of international law. The Assembly is
competent to allow the stay of foreign troops in Turkey or give them free passage in
Turkish territories. In pursuance of the fulfillment of international treaty obligations,
Turkish National Assembly shall be competent to depute army troops in a foreign country.

3. Control over Finance:

It is due to its control over financial legislation that the National Assembly can indirectly
shape public policies. The Assembly enacts finance Act and appropriation Act on the basis
of estimates of expenditure and proposals for raising funds. The legislators undertake
exhaustive deliberations on the budgetary proposals and frequently move cut motions to
tame the government.

4. Judicial Powers:
Though its legislative powers and fiscal control, National Assembly can indirectly affect
organization of judiciary and its working. It can also grant general amnesty but it does not
apply to the crimes committed against national ideology and country’s solidarity. National
Assembly exercises the right to confirm death sentences given by the courts.

5. Redressal of Grievances:
Being a popular chamber, Grand National Assembly performs an important role to redress
public grievances. During exhaustive deliberations on the floor of the House, public
problems are thoroughly examined and freely discussed. By passing different resolutions,
the House can express its opinion, condemning or appraising certain policies.

6. Parliamentary Enquiries:
Request for holding parliamentary enquiry can be made with the support of one tenths of
the total membership of National Assembly, against the conduct of any minister or even
against the Prime Minister. The Assembly discusses the case thoroughly and makes final
decision by majority vote. The affected party has the right to present its case in the
Supreme Court.
__________________
Kon Kehta hy k Main Gum-naam ho jaon ga
Main tu aik Baab hn Tareekh mein Likha jaon ga
 Role of Army in Politics

Historical Background:
Turkish society had to face an acute depression after its defeat in World War I. It was
deprived not only of its dependencies of Middle East of Ottoman period but lost also its
certain purely Turkish territories. Turkish army under the valiant command of Ataturk,
liberated few lost areas from the domination of allied forces. The military leadership
vehemently faced the hardships and started the task of national reconstruction with a
missionary zeal. In his drive for Secularism and Modernism, Ataturk used all tools of
oppression and coercion at his disposal to the extent of eliminating all symbols of historical
past of Turkish Society. Orientation of military training depicted the same trend. Imprints
of Western Civilization and culture became more and deeper on the army after Turkey
became member of NATO. The new socio political order did not remain merely secular,
rather became clearly anti-Islamic.

The newly developed system remained stable and government’s control over the society
was firm and tight during the lifetime of Ataturk. But things changed after his death and
natural urge for participation in the statecraft on the part of people grew stronger
gradually. As a reaction to the secular and anti-Islamic policies of the military regimes, the
Pro-Islamic elements gained momentum. Condemnation of military rule was the natural
result which found its exposition in various directions. Lifting the ban on the political
parties was an event which gave fillip to the lust for democratic system among the
masses.

The newly elected government perceiving the popular will, adopted moderate policies and
lifted excessive restrictions on the religious activities. The new policies indicated soft
corner for religious elements and relaxation on religious activities, which was a clear
deviation from the Kamalate legacy.

The liberal policy introduced by the Democratic Party’s government of Adnan Mendris,
stands a clear testimony to this. This party was formed in 1946 with Jalal Bayar and Adnan
Mendris as its founders. Democrats got victory in the election held in 1950 and formed the
government to the dislikeness of the army. Intervention of military in politics at intervals
blocked the way of the growth of democratic institutions. Acute polarization and perpetual
conflict based on violence among political parties paved the way for army’s involvement in
political life.

An analysis of the political role of army would reveal that out of eighty years of its history
after World War I, Turkey remained under the rule of a civilian president for not more than
a period of a decade only. All the constitutions of modern Turkey were framed under
military rule. The underlying factors that account for military’s intervention in civil life are
classified below:

1. Political Instability:
Such a strong leadership could not emerge after the death of Ataturk in 1938, as could
tackle and face extra-ordinary difficult problems generated by war. The successor
government was not strong enough to have a firm hold over public affairs, while demands
for popular participation in decision-making gained momentum. Mostly civilian
governments were formed, which were not stable hence unable to implement public
policies in an effective manner. Consequently, it would directly or indirectly intervene in
the political affairs during political chaos and unrest.

2. Lust for Power:

The temperament of the military became more and more political due to its excessive
involvement in civil affairs at intervals, implicating factional tussles within the army ranks.
If one group of army officials supported Democrats, the other developed a leaning towards
Republicans. Another reason responsible fro intervention of military in political life was
inspired by vested interests and getting more and more benefits for the army.

3. Role as Agent of Modernization:

The positive role of the army with regard to modernization and national reconstruction has
also supported the claim of the army to act as arbiter during political crisis. During a
period of military rule, political stability can be attained which is considered, of course,
indispensable for national progress. In contrast to this, the civilian period in Turkey has
been generally marked by political strife, violence and polarization. Some civil
governments had invariably accepted the role of army and depended on its support. Civil
administration, under such conditions, became loose, paving the way for direct control of
political life by the army.

Conclusion:
The military regime performed, no doubt positive role in national reconstruction and
development. But Turkish political system was no exception to save itself from injurious
effects of military’s involvement in civil affairs. Hence the main beneficiary of the fruits of
so called economic development and political stability was the military which exhausted a
large part of the national wealth and its resources even at the cost of economic needs of
other classes especially those of the rural areas. The military monopolized even civil offices
where military personnel were deputed frequently, giving civilian affairs an outlook of
military’s professional values. Polarization, party politics and factionalism penetrated within
the army ranks.

The attitude of the army hindered the growth of healthy democratic atmosphere. Instead
of performing the role of arbiters and mediators, the army chiefs generally got involved in
party politics, supporting a particular party and denouncing the other. The policies adopted
by the military regime during post World War I period proved, no doubt, positively fruitful
but under the changed scenario, the defence forces are well advised to limit their sphere of
action to defence affairs only and improve their professional competence.

at least in one chamber of the federal legislature. Formation of bicameralism was, therefore,
indispensable.

The House of Representatives

The Congress
American Congress, which is the repository of legislative authority in the federation, consists of two
chambers: Senate which is the upper chamber and the House of Representatives is the lower one.
Bicameralism was not adopted merely as a legacy of British rule it had to be adopted due to some
unavoidable reasons. As all the states, under the “Articles of Confederation” had equal status, the
smaller states at the same time of formation of the federal union, were not willing to join it unless their
previous equal status was not secured

The House of Representatives has been organized on popular basis. According to the constitution, the
Congress determines its total strength, subject to two conditions: “Each state shall have at least one
representative irrespective of its population”, and “the electors in each state shall have the qualification
requisite for electors of the most numerous branches of the state legislatures. In addition to it there
must be at least one representative for at least 30, 000 population. At present, the total membership of
this House is 435.

Duration:
The members of this House are elected for a period of two years, which is, too short to get full
knowledge of the procedural rules of the House. Moreover, the members have to start thinking and
preparing for new elections very soon. That accounts for the comparatively low quality of its
membership.

Organization:
During its first meeting, the newly elected House elects and appoints a number of office bearers, such as
Speaker, Clerk, Sergeant at Arms, Religious guide etc. With the exception of Speaker, all others are
nominated. The most senior member of the House takes the oath of office from the Speaker, while the
latter administers oath from all other members collectively. It is then followed by the framing of rules to
control the business of the House.

Committees:
Most of the work of the House is done by its committees which are formed in the very first session of a
newly elected House. Committees are named after the subjects they have to deal with. At present, there
are about 20 Standing Committees of which important ones are, Rules Committee, Committee on Ways
and Means, Committee in Supply, Judicial Committee etc. Each committee consists of 25 to 40 members.
Both parties get representation in the committees according to their numerical strength in the House.

Powers and Functions

The House shares with the Senate the power to enact laws on all federal subjects. It can initiate a bill
and its concurrence is required over the bills passed by the upper chamber. It enjoys somewhat superior
position over the Senate in respect of financial legislation, as all the money bills originate in the House.

The House can also initiate impeachment for the removal of the President, Vice-President and other
higher federal officials. For this purpose the House prepares a list of allegations against the concerned
persons and pleads the case before the Senate. It can propose amendment to the constitution in
collaboration with the Senate. Similarly, both Houses of the Congress can admit new states in the Union.
When the election of any member of the House is challenged on legal grounds, the House is the final
decision-making authority in this context.
Specific powers

Congress is given 27 specific powers under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. These are commonly
known as the enumerated powers, and they cover such areas as the rights to collect taxes, regulate
foreign and domestic commerce, coin money, declare war, support an army and navy, and establish
lower federal courts. In addition, Congress can admit new states to the Union (Article IV, Section 3),
propose amendments to the Constitution (Article V), collect federal income taxes (Sixteenth
Amendment), and enforce protection and extension of civil rights (Thirteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth,
Twenty-third, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth amendments).

Implied powers

Implied powers are not stated directly in the Constitution. They derive from the right of Congress to
make all laws "necessary and proper" to carry out its enumerated powers. Located at the end of Article
I, Section 8, this sentence is often called the elastic clause because it stretches the authority of
Congress. The Supreme Court upheld the concept of implied powers in the landmark case McCulloch v.
Maryland (1819), ruling that the federal government had the right to establish a national bank under
the power delegated to Congress to borrow money and control commerce. A more recent example of
implied powers is the War Powers Act of 1973, which limited the ability of the president to send
American troops into combat without consulting and notifying Congress.

Limitations on the powers of Congress

The Constitution lists powers that are denied to Congress

(Article I, Section 9). The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress
from making laws that limit individual liberties. Under the
system of checks and balances, the president can veto a law
passed by Congress, or the Supreme Court can declare a law
unconstitutional. Voters can ignore unpopular laws and
press for their repeal, as happened with the Eighteenth
Amendment establishing Prohibition.
Congressional districts
Americans are known for their mobility, and over the years states have lost and gained
population. After each federal census, which occurs every ten years, adjustments are
made in the number of congressional districts. This process is known
as reapportionment. In recent years, states in the West and Southwest have increased
their representation in the House, while states in the Northeast and Midwest have lost
seats. As a result of the 2000 census, for example, Arizona gained two representatives
while New York lost two.

Congressional district lines are usually drawn by the state legislatures (although the
federal courts sometimes draw districts when the original plans lose a constitutional
challenge). The Supreme Court ruled in 1964 that districts must have roughly the same
number of people so that one person's vote in an election is worth the same as
another's. This is known as the "one person, one vote" principle. Still, the majority party
often tries to draw the boundaries to maximize the chances for its candidates to win
elections. In 1812, Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts approved a bill creating
such an oddly shaped district that his critics called it a "gerrymander" — a political
amphibian with a malicious design. Gerrymandering now refers to the creating of any
oddly shaped district designed to elect a representative of a particular political party or a
particular ethnic group. In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Court was extremely critical of
oddly-shaped districts such as North Carolina's Twelfth Congressional District, and
stated that such districts could be challenged if race was the main factor in their
creation. A recent decision (2001) upheld the redrawn boundaries of the North Carolina
district.

Members of Congress
For most of the nation's history, members of Congress have been mainly white males.
Beginning with the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the number of ethnic minorities
and women in Congress has increased. Elected in 2006, the 110th Congress is the
most diverse in American history as shown in Table 1.
Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota became the first Muslim elected to Congress
in 2006 as well.

There has been less change in the occupational backgrounds of the representatives
and senators. Many legislators are lawyers or businesspeople, or they have made a
career of political life.

Once elected to office, members of Congress represent their constituents in different

ways. Some consider themselves delegates, obligated to vote the way the majority of
the people in their districts want. A congressperson or senator who takes this position
makes every effort to stay in touch with voter public opinion through questionnaires or
surveys and frequent trips back home. Others see themselves as trustees who, while
taking the views of their constituents into account, use their own best judgment or their
conscience to vote. President John Quincy Adams, who served ten terms in the House
after he was defeated in the presidential election of 1828, is a classic example of a
representative as trustee.

Members of Congress have a clear advantage over challengers who want to unseat
them. Current members are incumbents, candidates for reelection who already hold
the office. As such, they have name recognition because the people in the district or
state know them. They can use the franking privilege, or free use of the mail, to send
out newsletters informing their constituents about their views or asking for input.
Incumbents traditionally have easier access to campaign funds and volunteers to
generate votes. It is not surprising that 90 percent of incumbents are reelected. The
situation is not static, however. Legislators run for other offices, and vacancies are
created by death, retirement, and resignation. Although term limits, restricting the
number of consecutive terms an individual can serve, were rejected by the Supreme
Court, the idea continues to enjoy the support of voters who want to see more open
contests.

Leadership in the House

The Speaker of the House of Representatives is the only presiding officer and
traditionally has been the main spokesperson for the majority party in the House. The
position is a very powerful one; the Speaker is third in line in presidential succession
(after the president and vice president). The Speaker's real power comes from
controlling the selection of committee chairs and committee members and the authority
to set the order of business of the House.

The majority floor leader is second only to the Speaker. He or she comes from the
political party that controls the House and is elected through a caucus, a meeting of the
House party members. The majority leader presents the official position of the party on
issues and tries to keep party members loyal to that position, which is not always an
easy task. In the event that a minority party wins a majority of the seats in a
congressional election, its minority leader usually becomes the majority leader.

The minority party in the House also has a leadership structure, topped by the minority
floor leader. Whoever fills this elected position serves as the chief spokesperson and
legislative strategist for the party and often works hard to win the support of moderate
members of the opposition on particular votes. Although the minority leader has little
formal power, it is an important job, especially because whoever holds it conventionally
takes over the speakership if control of the House changes hands.

Leadership in the Senate

The Senate has a somewhat different leadership structure. The vice president is
officially the presiding officer and is called the president of the Senate. The vice
president seldom appears in the Senate chamber in this role unless it appears that a
crucial vote may end in a tie. In such instances, the vice president casts the tiebreaking
vote.

To deal with day-to-day business, the Senate chooses the president pro

tempore. This position is an honorary one and is traditionally given to the senator in the
majority party who has the longest continuous service. Because the president pro
tempore is a largely ceremonial office, the real work of presiding is done by many
senators. As in the House, the Senate has majority and minority leaders. The majority
leader exercises considerable political influence. One of the most successful majority
leaders was Lyndon Johnson, who led the Senate from 1955 to 1961. His power of
persuasion was legendary in getting fellow senators to go along with him on key votes.

In both the Senate and the House, the majority and minority party leadership
selects whips, who see to it that party members are present for important votes. They
also provide their colleagues with information needed to ensure party loyalty. Because
there are so many members of Congress, whips are aided by numerous assistants.

The work of congressional committees

Much of the work of Congress is done in committees, where bills are introduced,
hearings are held, and the first votes on proposed laws are taken. The committee
structure allows Congress to research an area of public policy, to hear from interested
parties, and to develop the expertise of its members. Committee membership reflects
the party breakdown; the majority party has a majority of the seats on each committee,
including the chair, who is usually chosen by seniority (years of consecutive service on
the committee). Membership on a key committee may also be politically advantageous
to a senator or representative.

Both houses have four types of committees: standing, select, conference, and
joint. Standing committees are permanent committees that determine whether
proposed legislation should be presented to the entire House or Senate for
consideration. The best-known standing committees are Armed Services, Foreign
Relations, and Finance in the Senate and National Security, International Relations,
Rules, and Ways and Means in the House. Both chambers have committees on
agriculture, appropriations, the judiciary, and veterans' affairs. In 2007, the Senate had
16 standing committees and the House had 20. The House added the Committee on
Homeland Security in response to the events of September 11, 2001.

Select committees are also known as special committees. Unlike standing

committees, these are temporary and are established to examine specific issues. They
must be reestablished with each new Congress. The purpose of select committees is to
investigate matters that have attracted widespread attention, such as illegal immigration
or drug use. They do not propose legislation but issue a report at the conclusion of their
investigation. If a problem becomes an ongoing concern, Congress may decide to
change the status of the committee from select to standing.

Conference committees deal with legislation that has been passed by each of both
houses of Congress. The two bills may be similar, but they are seldom identical. The
function of the conference committee is to iron out the differences. Members of both the
House and Senate who have worked on the bill in their respective standing committees
serve on the conference committee. It usually takes just a few days for them to come up
with the final wording of the legislation. The bill is then reported out of the conference
committee and is voted on by both the House and the Senate.

Like the conference committees, joint committees have members from both houses,

with the leadership rotating between Senate and House members. They focus on issues
of general concern to Congress and investigate problems but do not propose legislation.
The Joint Economic Committee, for example, examines the nation's economic policies.
The complexity of lawmaking means that committee work must be divided
among subcommittees, smaller groups that focus more closely on the issues and draft
the bills. The number of subcommittees grew in the 20th century. In 1995, the House
had 84 and the Senate had 69 subcommittees. These numbers actually represent a
reduction in subcommittees, following an attempt to reform the legislative process.
Although subcommittees allow closer focus on issues, they have contributed to the
decentralization and fragmentation of the legislative process.

When a House subcommittee is formed, a chair is selected, whose assignment is based

on seniority, and a permanent staff is assembled. Then the subcommittee tends to take
on a political life of its own. As a result, there are now many legislators who have
political influence, while in the past the House was dominated by just a few powerful
committee chairs. The increase in subcommittees has also made it possible for interest
groups to deal with fewer legislators in pressing their position. It has become more
difficult to pass legislation because the sheer number of subcommittees and committees
causes deliberations on bills to be more complicated. Once considered an important
reform, Congress's decentralized subcommittees have caused unforeseen problems in
advancing legislation.

The Senate

The Senate has been organized on the basis of parity of representation to all states i-e. two seats are
allocated to each state. No state, according to constitution, can be deprived of its equal representation
without its consent.

Duration:
Senators are elected for a period of six years but one-thirds of them retire after every two years. Hence
after every two years, new element steps in the lines of its membership. It has the advantage that the
Chamber keeps itself well informed about the trends of public opinion. Long tenure of membership, on
the other hand, has the definite advantage of promoting stability and continuity in the legislative
process.

Presiding Officer:
American Vice President is legally the President of the Senate as well, but due to his pre-occupation in
administrative matters, a President Protemporo, who is a member of the majority party, performs this
duty. He implements rules and regulations and maintains discipline in the House. He ahs full authority to
give his ruling on point of order and decide when the vote has to be taken during the deliberations.
Traditionally, he remains aloof from party politics.

Committees:
Most of the work of the Senate is done by its committees consisting of its members. All parties are given
representation in these committees in proportion to their numerical strength in the House. In the very
first session of the newly elected Chamber, party leaders nominate their members to different
committees, while the House, and later formally elect them. Chairman of the Committees are always
senior members. All standing committees are constituted for the entire term of the Senate.

Powers and Functions

The Senate shares equal powers with the House of Representatives in respect of legislation; while it
shares with the President certain administrative powers. From this point of view, it commands
somewhat superior position over the Lower House.

1. Legislative Powers:
The Senate shares, in contrast to British House of Lords, with the lower chamber equal legislative
powers. It does not merely revise the bills rather most of the bills originate in the upper chamber. The
Senators are the senior party members and the members of the House of Representatives pay full
respect to the verdict of their party leaders. Senate has comparatively an inferior position in financial
legislation as all the money bills originate in the House of Representatives.

2. Administrative Functions:
The Senate enjoys following administrative powers:

a) Presidential Appointments:
All the Presidential appointments of the senior federal officials got to be approved by the Senate by a
two-thirds majority vote.

b) Ratification of Treaties:
The President is empowered to negotiate treaties with foreign countries, but these got to be ratified by
the Senate by a two-thirds majority. When draft of a treaty is submitted before the Senate for approval
it is referred first of all to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. After receiving its report, Committee of the
Whole House reconsiders it and report it back to the Senate. On the basis of the reports of both the
Committees, the Senate finally gives its approval or withholds it.

3. Impeachment:
Removal of the public officials through impeachment was a method adopted as a legacy of British rule.
The President, Vice-President, judges and civil officials can be impeached while Congressmen are
exempted. Such a session of the Senate is presided over by the Chief Justice. The Senate can call for
evidence and necessary public records. In order to impeach a person, Senate’s approval by two-thirds
majority vote is essential. The maximum punishment of impeachment implies merely the removal from
the office. Impeachment can be done on serious charges involving gross misconduct or treason.
Supremacy of the Senate

American Senate commands a very significant position in the political system and has been regarded as
the most powerful upper chamber. It stands superior not only to its British counterpart but also to the
lower House of the Congress.

1. Representative Nature:
In contrast to the British House of Lords, Senate of America has been organized on the basis of elected
representation. Since British House of Lords is basically a hereditary chamber; it has, therefore, been
deprived of important powers. The Senators participate most earnestly and with full devotion in the
legislative process as this Chamber enjoys extraordinary powers.

2. Limited Membership:
The total strength of this Chamber is limited hence deliberations are most effective. Most of the other
legislative chambers have vast membership as a result higher standards of discussion can rarely be
maintained.

3. Long Tenure:
An important reason of the supremacy of the Senators lies in their long tenure i-e six years as compared
to two years of that of the House of Representatives. Senators are also re-elected twice and sometimes
thrice. Long tenures ensure more commitment to the business of the House on their part. They also get
more experience of legislative routine. As the term of the House of Representatives is two years, soon
after their elections, the members have to start preparing for the next election. Consequently, the
members are unable to devote themselves fully to the legislative business.

4. Superior Membership:
The Senators are mostly seasoned politicians due to the long tenure of the Chamber and the special
privileges and powers it enjoys. They are regarded party leaders in their respective states.

5. Representation of States:
Senate has been considered as the guardian of state rights and autonomy. As all states get equal
representations in the Chamber, smaller and comparatively less resourceful states, do not object to any
move aiming at the extension in its powers.

6. Special Privileges of Senators:

The Senators enjoy certain special privileges in the Chamber which are not secured to the members of
the lower House. They enjoy maximum freedom of expression on the floor of the chamber so much that
they can obstruct the passage of undesired laws by delivering long speeches. Moreover, the leadership
is less domineering in this Chamber and the members may cast their vote in an independent manner.

7. Continuity in Membership:
The membership of the Senate undergoes complete change at no time, as only one-thirds of its total
strength keeps on changing after every two years. Hence a new group of members is introduced
regularly after a short spell. As an advantage of it, the Senate remains well informed about the trends of
public opinion on the one hand, and the continuity in its membership brings more decorum to this
Chamber, on the other.

The underlying purpose of the Founding fathers to make this chamber more powerful, was that they
expected from it to act as a conservative check on the turbulence of democracy likely to appear in the
lower House. There was a time when it played its traditional role to block progressive legislation. But at
present, records show that this Chamber has become comparatively more progressive in approach.

How does impeachment work?

Impeachment was established by the framers of the Constitution as a way to accuse a

president of a crime and to hold a trial to determine if he is guilty of that crime. The

Constitution lays out two specific actions, treason and bribery, that could lead to

impeachment and removal of a president from office.

The system also allows for a broader category to accuse a president of crime, although that category is
more vague.

A president can also be charged with and found guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors." What exactly
constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors is not defined in the Constitution, making impeachment on
that basis more difficult.

By design, it is not easy to get rid of a president. Here are the steps in the process for impeaching a
president:

 First, an impeachment resolution must be introduced by a member of the House of

Representatives.

 The speaker of the House must then direct the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary (or a
special committee) to hold a hearing on the resolution to decide whether to put the measure to
a vote by the full chamber and when to hold such a vote.
  A simple majority of the Judiciary Committee must approve the resolution.

 If the Judiciary Committee approves the resolution, it moves to a full vote on the House floor.

 If a simple majority of the those present and voting in the House approve an article of
impeachment, then the president is impeached.

 The procedure then moves to the Senate where a "trial" is held to determine if the president
committed a crime. There is no set procedure for the trial. How it is conducted would be set by
the Senate leadership.

 Members of the House serve as "managers" in the Senate trial. Managers serve a similar role as
prosecutors do in a criminal trial, they present evidence during the procedure.

 The president would have counsel to represent him at the Senate process.

 The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presides over the trial.

 Senators listen to the evidence presented, including closing arguments from each side and retire
to deliberate.

 Senators then reconvene and vote on whether the president is guilty or not guilty of the crimes
he is accused of. It takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict. If the president is found
guilty, he is removed from office and the vice president is sworn-in as president.

The hearing in the Senate, along with a charge in the House that the president has committed a crime is
not a legal one. No penalty, other than removal from office, is brought against a president in an
impeachment hearing.

Impeachment trials have been held twice in the country’s history -- for President Andrew Johnson and
for President Bill Clinton -- and both ended in acquittals: meaning the presidents were impeached by the
House, but not convicted and removed from office by the Senate.

One vote kept Johnson from being convicted of firing the secretary of war in 1868, which went against a
tenure act.

In 1999, the Senate was 22 votes shy of convicting Clinton of perjury and obstruction of justice
stemming from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones.

America as a Federation

Concepts of Federalism

Federalism is a type of government in which the power is divided between the national government and
other governmental units. It contrasts with a unitary government, in which a central authority holds the
power, and a confederation, in which states, for example, are clearly dominant.

While the Constitution addressed only the relationship between the federal government and the states,
the American people are under multiple jurisdictions. A person not only pays his or her federal income
tax but also may pay state and city income taxes as well. Property taxes are collected by counties and
are used to provide law enforcement, build new schools, and maintain local roads.
Throughout the 20th century, the power of the federal government expanded considerably through
legislation and court decisions. While much recent political debate has centered on returning power to
the states, the relationship between the federal government and the states has been argued over for
most of the history of the United States.

The constitutional framework

Although the Constitution sets up a federal system, nowhere does it define what federalism is. However,
the framers of the Constitution were determined to create a strong national government and address
the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation, which allowed the states too much power. In terms of
the balance of power between the federal government and the states, the Constitution clearly favors
the federal government.

The powers specifically given to the federal government are not as relevant to the expansion of its
authority as the Constitution's more general provisions; that is, Congress is to provide for the general
welfare (preamble) and ". . . make all laws which shall be necessary and proper . . ." (Article I, Section 8).
In the Constitution as ratified, there is no similar broad grant of powers to the states. It emphasized
what states cannot do (Article I, Section 10) and gave them authority in just a few areas — namely,
establishing voter qualifications and setting up the mechanics of congressional elections. This reduction
in power was corrected through the Tenth Amendment, which reserved to the states or the people all
powers either not specifically delegated to the national government or specifically denied to the states.
The language in the general welfare and elastic clauses and the Tenth Amendment is vague enough to
allow widely different interpretations. Because both federal and state governments can turn to the
Constitution for support, it is not surprising that different concepts of federalism have emerged.

Dual federalism

Dual federalism looks at the federal system as a sort of "layer cake," with each layer of government
performing the tasks that make the most sense for that level.

The initial framing and ratification of the Constitution reflected this theory. Even those people
supporting a stronger national government proposed that powers in the federal government be distinct
and limited, with certain tasks enumerated for the national government in the Constitution and the
remaining tasks left to the state governments. Because this theory leaves each government supreme
within its own sphere of operations, it is also sometimes called dual sovereignty.

One more-extreme outgrowth of this theory is the idea of states' rights, which holds that, because the
national government is not allowed to infringe on spheres left to state government, doing so violates the
states' constitutional rights (especially the Tenth Amendment, which specifically reserves undelegated
powers for the states). Federal government action in those spheres represents an unlawful seizure of
power by one level of government at the expense of another. This view has historically been popular in
the South, where it was viewed as preventing national government interference in the region's race
relations, but it has been invoked elsewhere as well.

The problem with taking dual federalism this far is figuring out who defines where one layer ends and
the next layer starts. Before the Civil War, some voices said that, to protect their rights, states could
secede from the Union or declare national laws that affect them null and void — but those arguments
are no longer taken seriously. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court resolves disputes within the federal
structure, and because the Court is a national institution, it rarely favors the states.

Cooperative federalism

The theory of cooperative federalism emerged during the New Deal, when the power of the federal
government grew in response to the Great Depression. It does not recognize a clear distinction between
the functions of the states and Washington, and it emphasizes that there are many areas in which their
responsibilities overlap. For example, drug enforcement involves federal agents, state troopers, and
local police. The federal government supplies funds for education, but the state and local school boards
choose curriculum and set qualifications for teachers. (Interestingly, attempts to set national standards
for students in certain subjects have raised concerns of federal intrusion.) The notion of overlapping
jurisdictions is expressed by the term marble-cake federalism.

Cooperative federalism takes a very loose view of the elastic clause that allows power to flow through
federal government. It is a more accurate model of how the federal system has worked over much of
U.S. history.