how did the new deal change the role of the federal government?
458893
it was the largest federal government expansion in american history. it gave more power to the executive branch of government. The states were not able to successfully get out of the depression, so they gave up some of their state rights in order for the federal government to help them. This gave the federal government much more power in which to start new programs and agencies. (ie: social security) I'd say it was successful at the time, but many of the programs now are not effective or are outdated.
427509
Essentially, the reform was intended to give control of the presidential nomination process back to the voters.  Over time, party leaders had usurped that process, and only wealthy, white males were getting nominated.  Basically, the "old boy" network was thriving.  \n\nThere's a lot of disagreement as to whether the reform made a positive difference, and our present-day process indicates that if there were reforms in the 60's, we've watered them down considerably since then.\n\nThe Internet has a lot of info on this -- just type "McGovern-Fraser Reform" in any search engine.\n\nGood luck!
680584
If you're talking about the "New Deal":\n\nTennessee Valley Authority\nFederal Deposit Insurance Corporation\nSocial Security Administration
791674
Well who ever is in power are the good guys and the one's out of power are the rednecks.  You can track it back till the civil war.  Linclon was a Republican and until the depression they ran things so the Democrats were the rednecks.\n\nThen Roosevelt was elected and the Democrats slowly gained power.  He started setting up a bunch of welfare handout programs which was continued all the way through Johnson.  The democrats ran things for about 40 years until 1994, and the Republicans became the Rednecks.\n\nThe Republicans never were able to shake the redneck thing and have once again lost power so by next year they will officially become the Redneck party.
217865
The act established control of labor disputes on a new basis by enlarging the National Labor Relations Board and providing that the union or the employer must, before terminating a collective-bargaining agreement, serve notice on the other party and on a government mediation service. The government was empowered to obtain an 80-day injunction against any strike that it deemed a peril to national health or safety.
155721
In Europe and around the world, there has always been a strong element of people feeling that it is the government's job to take care of people, but this has not historically been the case in America because people have come to America *fleeing* government in order to make a new life for themselves.\n\nI think the problem really started with Keynes and the idea that men in government could manipulate the economy for the better of everyone.  Unfortunately, leading to and during the first part of the Great Depression, our government misguidedly inflated the money supply to a very large extent, distorting prices and capital investment.  Like a rubber band being pulled back, it had to snap.\n\nHoover tried many big-government solutions to the depression which only made things worse.  FDR campaigned that Hoover was doing the wrong then, then got elected and did the same thing, only more so.  All the big-government "solutions" only further distorted the economy (preventing the rubber band from snapping back correctly.)\n\nIn FDR's mad dash to spend as much government money as possible in order to stimulate the economy, he started Social Security, unemployment, welfare, and a host of other programs.  I think a combination of the dispair at the economy and the ease to sit back and let government handle things was the beginning of dependence.\n\nAs generation after generation grows up with the huge safety net paid for by those who don't need it (from each according to ability, to each according to need) then people know that they don't have to be successful and take care of themselves, because the goverment will have to be there for them.\n\nBy all means, help a deserving person out who can use help, but the automatic help for anyone, regardless of whether they deserve it or not is the real poison.
625893
The role of the government is to provide structure and consistency. Looking at the Constitution (Preamble), there are five things that were the goal of the federal government: "establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty".\n\nLiberals as a party focus mainly on the "promote the general Welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty". Conservatives focus more on the "ensure domestic Tranquility [and] provide for the common Defense". But let's look at each of these five goals relative to morality.\n\nIf your goal is promoting welfare, then morality isn't much of an issue. People generally agree that feeding people is good, that murder/mayhem in the streets is bad, that paved roads and clean drinking water are good, that driving 90 in a school zone or residential neighborhood is bad, and so on.\n\nFor defense, again generally people agree that being safe is good, police (as a concept) are good, a strong military (for defense) is good, buildings blowing up is bad, etc. How much can be sacrificed to achieve these is a different issue (see liberty, below). So again, morality isn't a big factor in these issues.\n\nFor "establish Justice", it doesn't matter what your morality is, justice is good. What constitutes justice may vary, but that goes more to the other issues (liberty and tranquility, see below). So again, the concept of wanting justice by itself is not morality-dependent.\n\nWhich leaves us with the balance between ensuring domestic tranquility and ensuring the blessings of liberty. Here's where we get interesting. \n\nConservatives want tranquility, harmony, consistency, even at the expense of some liberty interests. Liberals want greater personal liberties, even if that means letting some criminals go free or not regulating certain behaviors, thus impacting tranquility. \n\nMorality is the set of beliefs that determine what is more important to us. Valuing liberty over tranquility means allowing other people to do things you don't approve of, while holding tranquility over liberty means that you want your values to apply to everyone, in order to avoid conflict.\n\nIs the right to choose who you want to marry (regardless of race or gender) more important than preserving a traditional historical opposite-sex same-race marriage? Until 1967, mixed-race marriages were illegal in many states (mostly conservative ones) because marriage was "by definition" a union between people of the same race. It was a moral issue, because their religions didn't favor mixed-race marriage. The US Supreme Court said that legal restrictions shouldn't be based on religions dogma, and that the right to marry who you want isn't subject to state controls. So far, that ruling only applies relative to race-based decisions, not gender-based decisions.\n\nIs it right for a woman to choose what happens inside her own body? The conservative view is that society as a whole mandates controls, and that based on religious beliefs since the embryo can become a person it should be treated as already being a person. Hence abortion is immoral. However, let's say you don't share the same religious perspective. Let's say you believe that it is the soul that makes someone human, and the soul doesn't show up until the fetus is capable of independent life (viability). In that case, based on your religious beliefs, terminating a pregnancy before the soul enters the body is not murder. How can you prove when the soul enters the body (conception, viability, birth)? You can't. It's a religious issue. So the US Supreme Court went with a medical (not religious) definition of life, and said that states cannot dictate religious definitions as a matter of law.\n\nAmerica is a republic. That means we collectively get together and elect people to make decisions for us. In a p
807880
Some historians have referred to the Civil War Amendments (13, 14, 15) as a second constitution because they changed the relationship of the federal Government to the states.
568676
The only thing they change is the party in power.  Sorry but I can't see 10 cents worth of difference if you look at the parties in power over the years. So scandals hurt the party not the presidency.  Nixon got full retirement pay and all the benefits that the good guys got.
354133
During this period, the United States government was established by its first president, George Washington, and the Louisiana Purchase, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, and various Indian Wars expanded and consolidated the land expanse of the United States--while largely displacing the indigenous population.\n\ngo to this link \nhttp://www.animatedatlas.com/movie2.html
506446
It is misleading to say that the courts expanded the federal government's power through the Fourteenth Amendment.  The federal government did this -- all three branches.  In fact, Congress and the President have much, much more influence in such things than the federal courts do.\n\nIt was Congress, not the Courts, that passed the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Fourteenth Amendment by its own terms requires that the States ensure their inhabitants the basic rights that come with being American citizens.  It basically says that States can guarantee their citizens a HIGHER degree of liberty than the US Constitution does, but not a LOWER degree of liberty.  The courts have enforced the amendment Congress passed and the laws Congress passed to enforce the amendment.  Some of the most notable issues where the Fourteenth Amendment was used to challenge state laws have been in voting rights, in education, and in the rights of those accused of crimes.\n\nCongress and the President, though, have done a thousand times more to expand the role of the federal government vis a vis the states.
779586
It might be than that the government would go back to being merely a servant of the people -- merely a temporary servant; And not the people a servant to them.\n\n Its function might be to obey orders, not originate them.\n\nMaybe.
344704
The Supreme Court was made of strict conservative judges.  The New Deal policies were quite radical.  The Supreme Court basically rejected several of the New Deal ideas FDR put forth.  For example, the Supreme Court ruled the NIRA (National Industrial Recovery Act) unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court then rejected the AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act).
1097680
The original idea of federalism was that a central (federal) government would unify the country, and that the federal government would handle the big-picture issues leaving the individual states to govern locally.\n\nThat was the plan. Then, around the 1920s, things went horribly wrong. The entire 10th Amendment was basically declared redundant, and lost its meaning. What does the 10th Amendment say: "The powers not  delegated to the United States [federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, shall be reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."\n\nBasically, Congress was only supposed to pass laws that related to its specifically enumerated powers, as listed in the Constitution. What went wrong? The idea of a big central federal government took off, and Congress started passing laws for anything it could get away with. \n\nYes, some good things came of it. But also some not-so-good things. And over time, Congress started to think it could legislate anything, even writing laws that ignored the Constitution. \n\nThe goal of federalism was to ensure that all the states kept talking to each other and working together. The problem is, it became a tool where the majority-rule might-makes-right Congress could impose just about anything they want.\n\nSo the question becomes -- would we be better off if the states, who so far (recently) have shown very little interest in getting along together at all, were left to their own devices?
387016
you could argue it helped bring the issues back into presidential elections for the first time in a few elections. Since deflation was crippling the farmers and farming was still a major economic activity in the united states local coops were created. Also there was the creation of the populist party which although they werent succesful in presidential elections, they did help get some reforms eventually passed outside of elections. with many people seeking some form of solution to the money problems in the era, the candidates for elections had to take stands on how they were going to solve the problems, which was not as necesary in the previous decades of election.
1068961
He proposed the "New Deal" that brought the country out of the great depression\n\nLed the country through World War two\n\nworked towards unemployment, restoration of prosperity, significant new taxes and controls\n\nput over 120,000 japanese americans into concentration camps\n\nplayed a critical role in shaping the post-war world, particularly through the Yalta Conference and the creation of the United Nations.\n\nThose are key points ... research them in detail for your essay
679890
There is no one answer.  The "New Deal" made a big difference, as did World War II.  \n\nWWII was likely the largest factor.  At the end of WWII, The United States, The Soviet Union, and Japan were the only nations left standing.  Those three economies blossomed beyond all expectations (including the Soviet Union until the end of the cold war)