Essay 1

The American government is viewed as a unique distribution of powers which ensure that national sovereignty is shared between the national authority and another political unit, for example, the state. This is called federalism, and it is enshrined in the Constitution in Articles 1, 2, and 3.Out of all the six significant federalism types studied in the course, I think that dual federalism is the most significant one since it ensures that power is distinctly divided between the national and local governments, hence getting rid of possible feuds.

Dual federalism existed for the first 125 years, and it predominantly ensured that federal and local systems worked together without struggling for power. This is because each of them exercised its powers without interference from the other. In the current world, federalism has changed, and the US can witness some struggles between the two authorities. Although the local government is tasked with the collection of revenue, it still gets funding from the national jurisdiction to facilitate projects. This is not guaranteed by either cooperative or centralized federalism.

Usually, when there is no struggle for power, tranquillity thrives, and this would be a conducive environment for businesses to perform well. As a result, the country’s economy would be improved significantly. Therefore, dual federalism seems to be a pillar in the development of states and national governments thus upholding the overall power system in the US.

From the information above, I believe that dual federalism appeared to be more convincing than the rest of the types of federalism. In this regard, the national government can allocate funds to the local levels, but it can never interfere with the states’ decision-making processes. I believe that this gives senators and governors powers to lead their citizens without pressurizing the national government. This makes leadership more plausible and productive.

Essay 2

The Federalist Papers are crucial aspects of the American Constitution, written by some of the greatest brains of the country. Both Hamilton in Federalist 9 and Madison in Federalist 10 address the issue of factions. However, their arguments sharply differ since they have varied ways of addressing it.

In his argument, Hamilton treated “factions” as units formed as a result of political affiliations. His claims have been considered by other scholars since then. This is because the definition is viewed as the most plausible. Through his sentiments, it is evident that he was referring to states located within the Union. On the other hand, Madison viewed “faction” as a notion of social and economic affiliation. His primary focus was on various levels of wealth and the industries that existed in the country. Therefore, they can be dealt with easily compared to political factions. Thus, Madison’s explanation is more convincing than that of Hamilton.

The society is usually made up of social and economic aspects which ensure that human beings live happily and fulfill their dreams. Thus, I think that political affiliation might not be the central aspect that supports human survival and should not be treated as such. Political factions might even lead to chaos if they are not kept under checks, and this should not be condoned in societal levels.

Finally, I believe that Madison was right when he claimed that political affiliation could be an extension of the social and economic factors. Thus, his explanation regarding a “faction” takes into consideration both sides of the elements that form such units. While reading his Federalist 10, one can get a better grasp of the situation in America regarding the cropping up of factions and the roles they play.

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?