What Role should the National Government Have within the Federal System - Coursework Example

 What role should the National Government have within the Federal System? Thesis Although most federal systems have developed well-structured and well-defined mechanisms that separate and elevate the roles of the national government from those of state and local governments, challenges still exist. Role of the National Government In this paper, the US federal system will form the basis for all discussions and examples, although other examples will also be used to strengthen arguments and assertions. Just like in most federal systems, the US national government is the supreme legislative, judicial, and executive body (Saunders 27). Again, just like in most federal systems, it is composed of three different arms, with each having well-defined constitutional responsibilities and powers. These arms are the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Legislative Branch This is composed of two chambers of Congress: the Senate and the House of Representatives. Legislation meant to have a national impact must pass both houses and be presented to the President to be signed into law. Since all states are represented in the Senate and House of Representatives, it becomes clear that processes in the national legislature supersede all other happenings in state legislatures, and unless otherwise, states and local governments must be governed by laws passed in the national legislature (Storey 21). The Executive This is by far the national government’s largest arm. It is headed by the President, who serves a 4-year term. The Vice President is elected simultaneously, and is often the first in line to assume power should the President die, vacate office upon impeachment or conviction, or become incapacitated (Lowenfeld 19). Although the Executive shares powers co-equally with the judiciary and legislature, the President remains the most powerful individual in the national government. The President’s powers and responsibilities supersede everybody else’s, including all states and local governments. Such powers and responsibilities include: a) Appointing Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges, all of who must be approved by the Senate. These judges preside over national, state, and local cases, illustrating the influence of the President’s powers and roles. b) Appointing a cabinet of department secretaries and agency heads who must be approved by the Senate. These secretaries and agency heads have powers and roles which supersede all other related officials’ in state and local governments. For instance, the Secretary of Agriculture has powers and roles which define the agricultural sector in the whole country. c) Acting as the Commander-in-Chief of the military. Again, this is an all-powerful role that all states and local governments must answer to. d) Acting as titular head of state. e) Negotiating international treaties and treaties with American Indian tribes which must be approved by the Senate; f) Vetoing bills passed by Congress; g) Granting reprieves and pardons for federal crimes (except impeachment). Besides these constitutional powers, the President in practice has other powers that are not explicitly provided for in the Constitution or are simply informal (Storey 27). Firstly, the President can issue Executive Orders, which are directives that carry legal force. Executive Orders serve the following purposes: Creating new programs, offices or commissions to advance or implement the President’s political objectives. Establishing policies that affect how legislation passed by Congress is to be implemented. Declaring when the national workforce will observe holidays. Executive orders can be a powerful instrument for the President to realize policy objectives on a national scale, and this power is recognized by the Supreme Court. Finally, the President heads his/her political party, and can exploit the stature and image of the presidency to express political opinions and push political objectives, both with the members of his/her party in Congress and the public (Lowenfeld 34). Judiciary Tasked with passing judgment on legal proceedings that challenge or call for interpretation of acts of Congress and for presiding over criminal cases in which the defendant is accused of breaking federal law. The word federal is very important here because it shows that federal/national law supersedes all others (state and local) unless otherwise. In addition to this, federal courts have appellate jurisdiction over state and local laws when challenged on constitutional premises, and jurisdiction over cases stretching beyond one state, citizens of a state, or foreign parties (Storey 41). The judiciary is made up of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, including the Appellate Courts (also known as the Courts of Appeal or Circuit Courts), bankruptcy courts, federal district courts, and courts of federal claims. The courts of the national judiciary preside over both civil and criminal cases appealed from state courts, but their original jurisdiction is constitutes cases relating to trademarks, financial securities, bankruptcy, international claims, patents, maritime claims, and claims against the federal government (Saunders 38). Inference The three arms of the national government dictate the laws, processes and procedures in states and local governments. Although states and local governments are allowed to make their own laws, federal/national law always reigns supreme and is always referred to whenever necessary because it is based on the U.S Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land (Storey 45). The national government’s role within the federal system can therefore be summarized as the formulation, implementation, modification, and management of laws, processes and procedures that define how the country is run. In essence, the national government is responsible for managing the entire country, which includes states and local governments. Whenever there is debate over certain laws or procedures the national government must be involved and its opinion generally holds more power than that of state or local governments (Lowenfeld 53). Conflicts between the State and National Governments The conflict in this case pertains to the legalization of medical marijuana by some states in the USA. Currently, the legal status of medical marijuana in America is something of a paradox (Campbell 12). On one hand, the national government has banned the drug with no exceptions. On the other hand, over a third of states have legalized the growing, distribution, and use of medical marijuana. As such, the consumption of medical marijuana is an activity that is both encouraged (by state governments through their taxation and regulation systems) and proscribed (by the national government). It is safe to say that the conflict surrounding the legalization of medical marijuana exists in some nebulous radius of legality in which it is both legal and illegal (Campbell 18). According to some scholars, this conflict is considered to be “one of the most important federalism disputes in a generation.” The conflict has become heightened by the legalization, by 20 states, of the use of marijuana for recreation or medical reasons. An unpredictable overlord by federal agencies in states that have legalized medical marijuana threatens not just the efficacy of national enforcement, but also state drug policy. This assertion is on the basis that the federal drug ban only exists as collaboration between the national government and states (Haerens 10). That the national government depends on the infrastructure, assistance, and know-how of the states is supported, as an example, the fact that 99% of drug-related arrests and cases are carried out by state agents. Federal enforcement in states where medical marijuana has been legalized antagonizes state agencies to the extent of potentially jeopardizing collaborative efforts aimed at enforcing a dual-ban on drugs like cocaine, for instance. A solution to this problem may involve Congress exempting states that have legalized medical marijuana from federal enforcement. This would demonstrate federal respect for drug policies created by states, allow federal agencies to assign their limited resources to areas where they are likely to have long-term success, and resurrect the “cooperative federalism” between the federal government and states the drug laws were created as. According to Senator Patrick Leahy, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, the marijuana laws created by states “underscored persistent uncertainty” in regards to how the Justice Department resolves conflicts between federal and state marijuana laws (Haerens 21). However, according to Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, who is the committee’s ranking Republican; the Justice Department’s decision to allow states to implement such laws would have disastrous effects on public safety and might be in breach of international treaties. He and other critics say that more broadly, the Justice Department’s new approach was another instance of the Obama administration’s handpicking which laws to implement and which to shove under the rug (Campbell 39). In conclusion, I must say that all factors considered, logic requires that a more coordinated effort between the federal government and states would be a massive improvement over current policies that have been largely ineffective in controlling drug cartels and limiting drug-related violence. Works Cited Campbell, Greg. Pot, Inc.: inside medical marijuana, America's most outlaw industry. New York: Sterling, 2012. Print. Haerens, Margaret. Medical marijuana. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Print. Lowenfeld, Andreas F.. Conflict of laws: federal, state, and international perspectives. 2nd Ed. New York: Matthew Bender, 2008. Print. Saunders, Cheryl. The federal system. Parkville, Vic.: Law School, University of Melbourne, 2005. Print. Storey, William. US government and politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007. Print. Read More