Federalism of the United States Essay

Federalism in the United States has been debated for a long time. There are many people who support the power of the federal government and its authority over states, and there are proponents of local or state government which will be more adequate in the community. A compromise has been reached by giving some power to both parties. Sometimes, the federal government is located too far from the issue, as to see what the best decision that must be made is.

An example of local and national governmental conflict happened with the introduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park. The federal government understood that wolves must be reintroduced, as they were on an endangered list and the habitat of the National Park was the best suitable environment for their survival. People in the close-by residence and farms were not pleased with the danger that the wild animals posed and wanted to overpower the federal government.

The end result showed that the federal government was using publicly owned land, which in the end, belonged to all citizens of the United States, thus the local state government had to make sure the wolves were contained and preserved. A similar example was seen with the national and states’ laws in regards to drunk driving.

People of South Carolina and its senators did want to set a standard that was proposed by the federal government. It is unclear why such decision would not be approved, as the stand was strict and guaranteed more lives saved. Because the state government was refusing to accept the standard, the federal government warned about the cutoff of resources towards the highways. South Carolina was forced to change its laws with a compromise that trial will still apply and jury trial will be acceptable.

The concept of federalism and the division of power has been around for some time. The constitution was one of the main determinants, as to the possibilities that each branch of government has. It was also oriented towards people and their local needs which allowed for compromises to be made. After the attacks on the World Trade centers, the security in charge of airports became the matter of the federal government.

This change was made for several reasons that are all related to the ability to oversee threats. The federal government has much more centralized and a united system of surveillance and knowledge of the matters of national security. It is much easier to coordinate and set criteria equally for all states, so that there is a uniform and standard procedure that is followed throughout. The federal government also has more authority and resources to implement any changes and manipulate the policies that are set out. In contrast, people want to have own say in the matters, as they are much closer to the issues that are the happening in their state.

From one perspective people want to have the authority to participate in the governance of their state, but at the same time, some things are better understood by the federal government. The public realizes that they can be sure the federal government will take serious steps in deciding upon any existing and possible future problems. Overall, people are ready for a compromise where each situation is dealt with according to the circumstances that present themselves.