Explain how power is shared in a federal system?
457674
The executive is in charge of the government proper.\nthe legislative is charge of the financing and the laws.\nThe Judicary interprets the law according to precident and the constituion.\nStates are seperated along the same lines. Each is responsible for conducting business in a certain way.
360782
The federal government is the central government of the United States.  That is the president and the congress.
556697
Under the Constitution, it has a fair amount of power, as such.   It can make war, tax the people, regulate the economy, blah, blah, blah.  Historically, though, the Federal Government has usurped enormous powers that would normally be delegated to the states.
420169
Politics of Russia (the Russian Federation) takes place in a framework of a federal presidential republic, whereby the President of Russia is both head of state and head of government, and of a pluriform multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.\n\nSee the below link for more details.
951131
In a nutshell, Federalism is the seperation of powers between a Federal, national government and a local government, as we have in the U.S., or it can be defined as the decentralization of powers between differnt levels of government, such as the national government has powers, the state or province has certain powers,  the individual counties or parishes have certain powers, and then the towns and communities have certain powers, the second definitioin is much better, though neither is perfect.
919901
It has very much to do with how the United States was formed - from small units to a larger country instead of the conventional way where a nation is split into multiple provinces. This division of a nation into a central and local government is known as FEDERALISM.\n\nTake China for example, which uses provinces. The nation was united under emperor Qin Shi Huang and divided into multiple provinces, in order to more efficiently govern the nation. Here, the central government did the dividing, and hence kept as much power as possible to themselves.\n\nIn contrast, the United States (the name itself is suggestive) upon its formation consisted of 13 colonies, which united under a common cause to achieve independence. None of these states wanted to give up their power, contributing to the failure of the first union under the Articles of Confederation.\n\nThis was finally solved under the Constitution, which we continue to live under today. The basic model, however, persists, where the states have their own sphere of power that the central government (often misleadingly called the "federal government") cannot infringe upon. This does not exist under the province system where the central government is supreme in all matters.
242104
Well, as far as I know, the process in the US must be similar to that of Argentina (where I live), since both countries are federal, representative democratic republics (how democratic they really are might be up to debate)...\nAnyway, in such system, the government is divided in three powers... Executive, Legislative and Judiciary.\n\nThe Legislative Power (Senate and Congress) has its members elected every x number of years (2, I think), from the different political parties they belong two. (In the US there are only two important political parties, but here in Argentina we have more ideological diversity).\n\nAnyway, these elected representatives of the Legislative Power propose laws among themselves, which must be examined by jurists, and then voted, either on the Senate or on the Chamber of Representatives (depending on the law itself), and then, if the law is aproved, its passed over to the president (executive power), so that he turns the project into an effective law. Sometimes the president can veto some laws, annuling them.\nAlso, sometimes the president can write laws by himself, without them passing through the congress. But this is a mechanism supposed to be reserved for special occasions, and if a president does this too regularly he might be accused of abusing his power.\n\nThe duty of the judiciary is to ensure that the already enacted laws are enforced in the country. Sometimes, the different judges must decide is a law is or not valid in certain occasions, setting precedents that are then followed.\n\nTo sum up - Legislative creates and approves the laws.\nExecutive enforces them in the territory, and sometimes can veto them or propose its own laws, and judiciary has the duty to examin how are these laws enforced on the territory, making sure that people obey them.\n\n\nThis is how the system is supposed to work, but as you will see, the problems of corruption, political and economic lobbies, bussiness influence, and dictatorial tendencies of some politicians often tend to end up screwing the system.\n\n\nEdit: I am talking about national laws too. The different states and counties have their own executive, legislative and judiciary powers.\nFor more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_government\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy
781570
The supreme court's most important power as a branch of government is particularly for checks and balance.  Each branch is there to kinda keep the other two from getting too out of control.  It got it's power from the constitution that's where the branches of government were defined and where they're roles were defined.
935370
the Senate being part of the Legislative bracn has the power in conjunction with the House of Representative to to pass laws and regulation . There are some differences in the powers of the House and senate however. All spending bills while requiring passage by the senate must be initiated in the House of representatives the senate can amend an existing spending bill but can not initiate spending legislation. Removal of federal officials is vested in the congress but must be originated in the House of Representatives by articles of Impeachment. once impeached The senate holds the sole power to hold a trial and remove said official these are the powers vested in congress as a whole and how they are divided.\n\nthen there are the powers that are exclusive to the senate and are not shared by the house. The senate holds the sole power of advice and consent in regards to cabinet, Ambasador   and judicial appointees. The senate also has the sole power to approve or ratify a treaty with a foreign entity or government. The last power granted by the 16th amendment is the power to elect the vice president if the electoral college is deadlocked. \n\nAs for problems many would argue the pratice of filibuster which is practiced only in the senate is is counter to the democratic principle one person or in this case senator one vote. for for the Filibuster allows a minority to block the majority voteby not releasing the floor so a vote can be taken.\nSome also Might contend the original intention of the senate has been corrupted. The The house of representative was ment to be the body representing the populous The senate was put in place to safeguard the rights and sovereignty of state governments as a whole. the modern senate can be argued is much more a populous body than the founders intended.\n  \nI think this covers all the bases I hope this helps
430036
Federal Law supercedes state law if they conflict.  However states can create and pass additional laws as long as the are not in violation with our constitutional rights.  That is why different states have different variations of the same basic law.
258295
I assume you are refering to the United States government? Keep in mind that not everyone on Answers is American.\n\nAt any rate, function is a bit too strong a word. However, the current federal system came into being with the radification of the constitution, which began in 1787 and was completed in 1790. The Constitution took effect in 1988 when it had been ratified by 9 of the 13 states. The new federal government began opperations in 1789.\n\nFrom 1777 to 1788, the federal government was defined by the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation remained in effect until the 13th state ratified the constitution in 1790. The government defined by the Articles was strickly speaking a federal system, but the federal government couldn't really do anything, so the systme didn't last very long.
1139060
Using Australia:\n\nFederal Parliament and State Parliament execute different powers, but they both have the same level of power in relations to their allowed powers. They can pass, amend, vote, and reject bills, and can also amend old laws not in the constitution. They can call for a referendum for a change in the constitution, and they appoint the judges in the judicial system (well, the government does anyway).
133464
The central government would be the federal, or national government.  You can make sense of this by thinking that as it is the central govt., it is in the center of running everything.
857191
It is called Checks and Balances. This means that the Executive, Legislated and the Judicial Branches all check each other to ensure that one branch is not stronger than the other. Think about it if we only had one branch in government that branch would most likely abuse power.
22037
In the United States, concurrent powers are powers held by both the states and the federal government and may be exercised simultaneously within the same territory and in relation to the same body of citizens. Contrast with delegated powers and reserved powers. Some of the concurrent powers enjoyed by both the federal and state governments are: the power to tax, make roads and protect the environment.\n\nre·vi·tal·ize   Audio pronunciation of "Revitalization" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (r-vtl-z)\ntr.v. re·vi·tal·ized, re·vi·tal·iz·ing, re·vi·tal·iz·es\nTo impart new life or vigor to: plans to revitalize inner-city neighborhoods; tried to revitalize a flagging economy.\n\nThe rule of law implies that government authority may only be exercised in accordance with written laws, which were adopted through an established procedure. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary rulings in individual cases.\n\neminent domain\nn.\nThe right of a government to appropriate private property for public use, usually with compensation to the owner.
1088282
It starts with Congress, though the general process works the same for state legislatures creating state agencies.\n\nThe legislature passes what is called an "enabling law" which creates an agency and grants the agency certain powers. These must be within the type of laws that Congress itself could pass.  [See Article I of the Constitution.] Essentially, Congress is delegating some of its rule-making power to the agency, usually with specific guidelines and a specific purpose.\n\nThe agency then goes through whatever their established procedure is, as determined by the enabling statute. Because they have been delegated quasi-legislative powers, the agency regulations have the same effect as if the laws had been passed directly by Congress.\n\nFor more specific detail on the step-by-step process, see the Wikipedia link below.
1148396
amendment X (the Tenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It states:\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\nThe Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers it is granted in the Constitution.\n\n\nSo Has the fed out step it self? As in schools, abortion, marriage and so on and on. It all was meant to be up to each state not the feds. \n\nI would need to say Yes to your Question, but is it better this way. In some ways yes but many others no not at all.