I need one example of real history where federalism limited the power of the government??
916904
Both of the current examples are wrong.  Federalism means that there are certain aspects of life that the U.S. Government cannot regulate and MUST leave to the states.  Oftentimes, the Supreme Court will declare a law unconstitutional because it was not enacted purusant to Congress's "enumerated powers" in Article I of the Constitution.  Congress can't make any law it want, but can only make a law pursuant to the powers dedicated to it (Usually article I, section 8 of the Constitution, although there are other sources of Congressional power, such as the Fourteenth Amendement "enabling clause")\nThis was an issue prior to the New Deal.  But here's the most recent example:\nIn the 1990s Congress passed a law that made a federal penalty to possess guns near school zones.  They tried to enact the law pursuant to the "commerce clause" (Congress may regulate interstate commerce, most guns travel in interstate commerce, threatening students harms interstate commerce etc.)  \nThe Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional, finding that Congress didn't have the authority to enact that federal law pursuant to the Commerce Clause.  The regulation of guns near schools wasn't substantially related to the traveling of the guns in interstate commerce, nor did you have to prove the that guns traveled in interstate commerce.  The case was United States v. Lopez.  (See link below.)  If states want to enact such a law pursuant to their general "police powers," they're free to do so, but that law was outside the particular scope of Congressional authority.
839702
Federalism is a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces), creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists. In Canada, federalism means opposition to sovereigntist movements (usually that of Quebec). In Europe, "federalist" is often used to describe those who favor a stronger federal government (or European Union government) and weaker provincial governments. The same is historically true in the United States, with those who generally favor a confederation, or weaker federal government and stronger state governments, being called "anti-federalists". However, in recent years in America "federalism" has come to be associated with opposition to a stronger federal government.
921773
They were all democratic to a degree.  It IS a republic.  They tried to govern themselves and discovered that in the bigger picture, there was little to no unity.  Each state had its own currency, trade between states became a nightmare.  The Articles of Confederation prooved itself to be too flawed.  I like to think of it as Swiss Cheese...
1087004
Our system of Government was set up as a Republic.  they were well afraid of too strong of Federal Government and sit the nation up as individual states and the Federal Government to only have that power that was given it, \n\nBasicly each state was to have the right and ability to be self governing.\n\nWell that went to >>>> in a handbasket before too long and that was one of the main issues of the civil war, with the south supporting state rights and the union supporting a much stronger and powerful federal government.\n\nSo now we have federal income tax ( which is actually unconstitutional) but who listens to me.  And a Federal Army, not merley each state supply troops for a Federal defense.\n\nBut some issues like capital punishment,  murder laws, theft laws, and of course Probate laws, have been left alone for now, since I guess there is not enouigh money in them for the feds to want to be invovled.
937140
I haven't got time to answer all of these, but the first case you mention is (I think) where the Court ruled that a local govt. could not tax a national bank because that would mean it had the power to destroy it - which could not, of course, be permitted.  Hope this helps.
1024778
Federalism focuses on the idea of a balance between the local individualized governments of the states and the large unified Country-wide government, i.e. our federal government.  Separation of powers can refer to what is constitutionally given to the federal government and what is left to the states.
659611
The root of limited government goes back before writing. Ancient Greek and Celtic societies used vearious levels of Democracy. Both Celt and Greek distrusted central governments. From conquering Celt and Greek peoples, especially the Greeks Roman's were influenced and at one point adopted limited Democracy themselves as well as practicing limits on government. Ceaser ended this and destoryed the reforms. However the seeds of Greek and Roman writers remained in the far reaches of the empire. When combined with Celtic philosophy it started to develop into what became English common law. \n\nThe English warlords and Feudal leaders had a contencious lot to rule. In general they found it best to just exert influence and allow the people to rule themselves. Robin Hood myth or real hero is an example of the  Celtic/English contempt for authority. Squeeze them too much and revolt is inevitable. This became tradition which became unwritten law which actually gained formal recognition. Even fuedal lords twoard the end were bound by common law when it came to certain aspects of life. Rouge lords were known to break with Common law and there was little authority to directly punnish them but the people were not without means of redress and would often use it against a cruel lord. \n\nEventually as writing spread from the clergy to common Englishman many of the principles of English Common law were transcribed. The nation itself was evolving into a more centralistic state and each decade reesembling more the rest of Europe. Common law persevered however. It also was the foundation from which many English political philosophers such as Thomas Paine used for inspiration. \n\nPaine was unusually influential on Jefferson and Franklin. As such some of Paine's ideas really stand out in the US constitution. Franklin and Jefferson both continued to expand on these ideas while others like Monroe opposed them. Eventually the cival war was born of these conflicting ideas in government. The more rural south distrusted and did not want a strong central government. Neither did the Western states. Support for the war was won by supplicating many diverse interests including industrialists and abolishionists. The end result was for Monroeism to triumpth.  \n\nSo the US constitution at this point is the ultimate design on limited government so far. It though is a creature of thousands of years of tested principles and countless contributions from individuals.
832529
When our system of government was created the fears that our founding fathers had about tyranny still existed. To prevent the abuse of power several systems were created. Federalism was created to ensure that state governments could exercise local control and Separation of Powers was created to further divide the power of the national government. Separation of Powers has within it a system of checks and balances. These checks and balances set one branch of government against the other to ensure a healthy competition. This competition safeguards against one branch gaining too much power.\n\nInternally, the legislative branch has its own way of balancing power. The legislative branch, as you know is broken up into two parts or houses. This is known as a bicameral legislature. Each of the houses of Congress has its differences and there are something they must do together as well.
247087
All political systems may be evaluated according to their geographic distribution of power. A unitary system is one that concentrates all policymaking powers in one central geographic place; a confederal system spreads the power among many sub-units (such as states), and has a weak central government. A federal system divides the power between the central government and the sub-units. All political systems fall on a continuum from the most concentrated amount of power to the least. Unitary government s may be placed on the left side, according to the degree of concentration; confederal governments are placed to the right; and federal governments fall in between
74509
The main reason is because the Articles of Confederation worked so dismally. Without a relatively strong federal government, the states were not able to get anything done together. The framers believed that a central government, which could actually make decisions that were binding on the states was necessary in certain areas, such as printing currency, making war, etc.
1112397
A dual system of government is also known as Federalism. \n\nFederalism is the separation of power between the federal and state governments.
39135
It was also the second consitution.  The first, called the Articles of Confederation, existed for the first decade of the republic and left out many Congressional powers such as the power to coin money, and was thus replaced.  The more federalized Constitution has been the governing document ever since.
156436
Mbyae you slouhd flal bcak adn rwtrie tihs quiteson.\n\nIf you're asking if there can be two federal governments in the US of A the ansewer is NO.
101390
Federalism:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FederalisM\n\nConfederalism:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederal\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederalism
946098
because it gave Congress limited power so the country didn't have a strong central government. for example, congress could not impose tax, draft soldiers, regulate trade, and it did not have a chief executive (president basically), and it had to depend on the state legislature for money, and soldiers so...\nhope that helps!
623951
Given that the federal government has very limited enumerated powers, it's ability to withhold (or offer) federal funds as the carrot/stick to get states to do things is one of the few ways that they can affect local laws.\n\nPersonally, I think the federal government should be absolutely minimalist, just enough to support the military (for national defense, not nation building) and  ensure that the federal courts and the interstate roads remain functional.\n\nAh, the good old days, when "necessary and proper" really meant it.
973772
Hell no. Remember that during the segregation era, southern states hindered the advancement of equality by declaring they were "sovereign states" and didn't had to obey federal law. I support states rights to some limit and I think when states conflict with federal government then we are in trouble.